Atheists cannot be Agnostic at the same time.

I must remind Pro that this debate is not measured by the length of one's arguments. If you are trying to win by confusing us all, I must say that you're doing an excellent job. In fact, keep it up! In my response, I will be attacking all of Pro's points in alphabetical order: A. Pro claims that I have unfairly defined my terms. I say that I have fairly defined my terms. My definitions are better because most of them are derived from credible sources. Oppositely, Pro has not only produced no sources to back his definitions, but Pro's definitions have already been rejected by atheists themselves (i.e. Dr. Dawkins' Scale of Religiosity) B. Pro claims that I conceded his resolution. But Pro twisted my words. I said: "Perhaps, in the distant past, agnosticism and atheism were mutually exclusive. But that is no longer the case . . . Instead, they overlap like two links in a chain." Pro is being dishonest in twisting my words against me. This is another example of Pro's "bad form". C. Pro maintains that I have misdefined agnosticism "...to suit [my] own [agenda]..." But Pro is relying on his unproven definition of agnosticism to suit his own agenda. What makes my definitions better is not only do they make sense, but my definitions are affirmed by credible authorities. Moreover, I have conceded nothing! Pro is clearly misrepresenting me. D. Pro says that "original" agnosticism is "the suspension of belief and disbelief together." This is incorrect for several reasons: 1. "Original agnosticism" is outdated; it no longer reflects the modern overlap between agnosticism and atheism. In other words, hardly anyone could qualify as an original agnostic anymore because times have changed. 2. "Original agnosticism" sounds more like spiritual apathy than an actual position on the spirituality. Pro equivocates apathy with agnosticism; the two terms are not interchangeable. Even if Pro is correct, Pro's resolution still fails because atheism can be motivated by apathy. In other words, apathy and atheism are not mutually exclusive. 3. "Original agnosticism" is based on a misunderstood onus. (Note: Onus means "burden of proof") The onus is not placed on agnostics to say whether God exists. Quite the opposite, theists must prove that God exists. After all, Socrates once said that "He who asserts must prove." Agnostics believe that theists fail their onus and, therefore, cannot believe based on said failure. This harkens back to my previous statement: 'Until evidence is presented, it is impossible to know if God exists." E. Pro states that my insistence of Dr. Dawkins as a source constitutes a logical fallacy. Pro is in error because he misapplies the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Here's the deal: the fallacy occurs when the wrong authority is cited, not when a biased authority is cited. For instance, if I claimed that the President of United States can issues pardons and used Barack Obama as a source, that is not a fallacy. Rather, that is a proper authority that enhances my argument. It would not matter that Barack Obama is biased as a Democrat. It only matters that he is a proper authority, which is evident in the case of President Obama. F. Pro attacks my Republican/Democrat analogy, saying that it is a false parallel. But hang on. Does the amount of disagreements matter? My point was simply that persons can disagree with generally like-minded persons. Pro missed the entire purpose of my analogy. Thus, my analogy stands in spite of the alleged difference. G. "Republicans cannot be Democrats at the same time." Yes, they can. Has Pro ever heard of an Independent? Independents vote both ways all the time! In the same way, there is middle ground between absolute agnosticism and absolute atheism. It's called agnostic atheism! H. "Atheists have incorrectly defined themselves as being a "lack of belief". First, the grammar in this sentence is faulty. Second, - I cannot repeat this enough - times have changed. There are no longer definitive walls between agnosticism and atheism, if ever there were any. The Scale of Religiosity allows for positions to bleed into each other. Pro's logic only makes sense if one adopts the outdated definitions of agnosticism and atheism. In fact, the difference between them is now very insignificant. They are nuanced approaches which can, for some, overlap. Third, look at the comments section of this debate. All of the commenters agree with me that there is middle-ground between agnosticism and atheism. What's more, most of the commenters are agnostics/atheists who know themselves and their own beliefs much more than Pro. I. "The fast food burger analogy does not take into account that atheists willingly lie about their position..." Seriously? Did you just accuse all atheists of lying about their positions? Every atheist is a liar? Pro just made an absolute statement which, by definition, is impossible to prove. Here's the real deal: Pro is trying to tell all atheists that they're wrong. Even worse, Pro is saying that atheists cannot define themselves. If this isn't fallacious, I don't know what is! J. "Con has not provided any valid logical arguments and [has] only relied [on] authorities to make his point." Firstly, Pro's grammar seems to get worse with length. Perhaps Pro should make shorter arguments. Secondly, not so! In my first two rounds, I made several, logical points of my own. Furthermore, citing an authority is a valid argument. The Greek philosopher Aristotle, in his masterpiece called "Rhetoric", wrote that there are three legitimate ways to convince: logos (logic), ethos (authority), and pathos (emotion). I have consistently used logos and ethos throughout my speeches. K. Pro attacks my syllogism but he doesn't explain what's wrong with it. Pro merely proposes one of his own that is decidedly inferior. My syllogism: Major premise: God's existence requires knowledge in order to believe. Minor premise: I don't know if God exists. Conclusion: Therefore, I do not believe in God. Pro's syllogism: Major premise: To accept or reject a claim requires knowledge. Minor premise: I don't know if God exists. Conclusions, I cannot accept or reject any claims about God. Here's my analysis, along with my reason for why my syllogism is superior. Pro's only "correction" of my syllogism was to add the clause: "accept or reject" to my major premise and my conclusion. But here is where Pro errs greatly: Can't I reject a claim that has not be positively proven to me? Socrates said that "He who asserts must prove." Thus, whoever makes the claim that God exists must prove that it is true. The agnostic makes no such claim. Rather, the agnostic investigates to see if the theists' arguments (that assert God's existence) are true. The onus, or burden of proof, is only theists, not the agnostic. Pro errs because he/she places the onus on the agnostic. The agnostic is suddenly responsible for asserting and proving if God exists. No, this is wrong because the responsibility lies solely on the theists. Here's the most important part: Unproven assertions can be dismissed without requiring any disproving knowledge. This is the agnostics' true position. Since the theists fail to prove their assertion, I can dismiss their argument automatically. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I apologize for the long response, but it was made necessary by Pro's overdone responses. Hopefully, Pro's next speech will be substantially shorter. Nevertheless, I eagerly await the next round. Selah!