Agnosticism and Atheism are mutually exclusive

Thanks to Pro for finishing his side of the debate. I'm going to follow suit! However, I must warn the audience, to help bar any further misunderstanding, I am going to be very blunt. This isn't an attempt to insult Pro, just removing the padding of what I might normally do, as if this was a forum. This way allows me to be far more direct and to the point. (Also, where are the sources Pro claimed to have?)My opponent starts by claiming that the definition of "agnostic" (not agnosticism, which Pro incorrectly stated) does encompass belief as well as knowledge of claims. This claim rests on four words: "neither faith nor disbelief".[1] I proposed during the last round that these were being used as plugs to say "not gnosticism". My opponent has ignored this suggestion entirely and has instead resorted to turning the words bold. (Not an insult, please bear that in mind, merely an observation.)I will, therefore, defend my suggestion and show how it is better than my opponent's. Rebuttal 1 - The words "faith" and "disbelief", when being used in the context of source 1's definition[1], are plugs for "not gnosticism".This can best be illustrated by turning to the root word of "agnostic"; "agnosticism". Once again, I am forced to define "agnosticism": "the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims, are unknown or unknowable."_Wikipedia[2][3][4][5].This has nothing to do with belief in said claims, just a belief in the truth values on them. Now, we are back where we started, but this is where the true rebuttal kicks in. To avoid continuing the game of "Yes it is; no it ain't" which has been started, I will now prove how my opponent's rebuttal is weaker than my suggestion. If my opponent's rebuttal stands, then the word "agnostic" takes meaning from other sources which Pro has not demonstrated/ He has merely quoted the definition. This would leave people scratching their heads as to why this is so. If my counter-suggestion of "these are being used as plugs for "not gnosticism"" stands, then the problem goes away. Inductive logic tells us that my suggestion is more withstanding than my opponent's. To end this rebuttal, I will further defend this position by drawing the distinction between "disbelief" and "non-belief (a.k.a. lack of belief; unbelief)". On a basic level, they appear to mean the same thing. But, if they are true synonyms, then why do definitions like "atheism" repeat themselves, by mentioning both[6]? The answer: There is a distinction. People tend to agree that "disbelief" refers to gnosticism (i.e. the claim: "I positively reject that there is a God; there is no god."), whereas non-belief/lack of belief/unbelief refers to agnosticism.[7][8] This proposal not only further demonstrates why my suggestion of "disbelief" does not refer to agnosticism de facto, but also makes the problem of "Why'd they put both in?" go away, for certain definitions.My opponent claims: "[...] it’s because they’re agnostics[;] that’s why they don’t have a belief [n]or non-belief in God"_Pro. If my opponent had said "disbelief", I would agree here, but my opponent has decided to switch words. He said "non-belief". Now, "disbelief" is the positive rejection of a claim and implicitly claiming knowledge of the subject; that's gnosticism. "Non-belief" is just the negation of the claim "belief". So, it is perfectly valid for an agnostic to hold to having non-belief. Pro switches words whenever it suits him; it seems to be so, in any case. Pro also claims that atheism can only equal disbelief, because on any other definition: "atheism ceases to be a view."_Pro. This claim is interesting in that it assumes atheism has to be a view. If, as my opponent points out, the technical definition would hold it not to be a view and merely the negation of theism, then so be it. Here, my opponent just makes an assumption and assumes the audience are just going to follow it through. Pro also claims that "They are saying that the agnostic does not believe in God or disbelieve in God."_Pro Half correct. An agnostic cannot disbelieve, as I have already demonstrated, but they can still believe in a god. All they have to do is realise that the truth to the claim "there is a god" is unknown or unknowable.Pro does answer the second question, too. But I will respond to this further on.The following are Pro's answers - followed by my responses - to my initial answer of Pro's questions."So then what my opponent is affirming here is Agnosticism. He doesn’t know if God does or does not exist."_Pro. Correct, but only because it doesn't imply atheism or theism in my answer alone."This hardly makes any sense at all. My opponent doesn’t know, but doesn’t want to accept evidence for God?"_Pro. To respond to this properly, I shall quote myself from round two:"My conclusion on the existence of a god is that I do not know whether one exist, but I do not accept any "evidence" for one that I have seen, thus far."_Con. Pro's response starts with the bare assertion fallacy and follows it with a straw man. While it is true that I do not know, I will accept any evidence when it starts presenting itself to be accepted. In other words, my use of the word "evidence" in round two was clearly used in combination with quotation marks! It is not that I don't want to accept any evidence; it is just that I have not seen any."Not necessarily true, a belief = knowledge if the case that the belief is, in fact, true, and the believer must have justification for the belief. A belief is ``justified" if and only if the input to the function is accurately represented in the output."_Pro. I agree, here. Concession on this point.My opponent now goes onto about the last third of his debate, which is really one large red herring fallacy. While making the distinction between knowledge and belief (and when there is none) is all very well, my opponent's boils it all down to this conclusion: "So the question still remains: Is my opponent’s belief true or false? If it’s true, then he needs to provide some justification for thinking it’s true. If it’s false, then he takes it by “blind” faith." AND "If my opponent does not believe the proposition “God does not exist”, then he is not an atheist. He’s either a Theist or Agnostic. But there’s no in between because as I said before, his conclusion is inconsistent with his premise, I therefore contend that the proposition “Agnostic Atheist” is logically incoherent and invalid because it does not have a steady conclusion."_ProMy belief in terms of what? My agnosticism or my atheism? Pro has not shown how they contradict. Indeed, his best shot at it, he completely ignored! (He ignored my question about what part of the definition was contradictory.) Assuming my atheism, I cannot demonstrate it to be true nor false. Nor do I believe that anyone else can do the same. Therefore, I need not provide any justification, nor do I take it by blind faith! However, I do believe it to be the most logical position, but I do not have the arrogance to proclaim it as the truth. My opponent has presented a false dichotomy. Next, my opponent straw mans the term "atheism" and takes it to mean "the belief that there is no god", which is actually gnostic atheism. Since we are dealing with agnostic atheism, this is a straw man. His only justification for that definition of atheism is one from personal incredulity. I refuted that above, further up my argument. ConclusionsPro has failed to meet the burden of proof required of him. He has consistently switched words as if they were synonyms, straw manned my arguments, devoted ~one third of his last argument to a red herring, and has completely ignored the crux of my last argument, which was summarized as the following question:((""Someone who claims that the knowledge of the existence of a god is unknown and/or unknowable and someone who does not believe in a god."))A question to my opponent: What part of that definition of an agnostic atheist (given above) is contradictory?"_Con. Lastly, I have shown how inductive logic and semantics support my case, revealed the fallacies Con has committed, and refined my case (such as question 2b) when my logical errors were correctly accused of me. I have also refrained from straw manning my opponent's case and my coup de grace has gone untouched by Pro! However, I would like to thank my opponent, janetsanders773, for an entertaining debate on semantics; I never thought it could be so much fun! :D I would also like to thank the audience and the voters. As a personal note, this debate originated on an opinions section, moved to an irrelevant forum, moved onto a relevant forum, and lastly onto here! So, a pat on the back for me and Con, for sorting this out like (educated) men! :DMany thanks and all the best to you!JSource(s):[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]Hepburn, Ronald W. (2005) [1967]. "Agnosticism". In Donald M. Borchert.The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.)[4] Rowe, William L. (1998). "Agnosticism". In Edward Craig.Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis.[5]"agnostic, agnosticism". OED Online, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press. September 2012[6]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[7]http://answers.yahoo.com...[8]http://www.harvestmessenger.com...