All Agnostics are also Atheists

“If my opponent has further questions of clarification, I recommend they be asked in the comments section, as to not clutter the round. ”His recommendation would result in a lack of integrity and debating conduct on behalf of both of us. Besides, clarification about the debate terms is what the debate is for. It would get confusing if we were to clarify elsewhere. We have to keep it on the record, in the debate. Therefore, if either of us will have any clarifications about this debate, it is our responsibility to clarify them - in the debate. And we will. “Nowhere did I assert "all theists are agnostics"; rather, I asserted the categorical existence of theists that were agnostic. ”Which, by virtue of knowledge, would make all theists agnostic by virtue. “The difference between negative and positive atheism is that a negative atheist simply lacks a belief in god while positive atheism asserts no god exists. ”All that is needed is that a negative atheist does not assert that “no gods exists”. Under this dead-category, an agnostic atheist could still assert that “I don’t believe in God”…“The positive atheist is called positive because it maintains an assertion, while the negative atheist does not hold an assertion. ”Under my opponent’s definition of “negative atheist”, one could hold the assertion that even the “positive atheist” holds: “I don’t believe in God”. Thus, they both can maintain an assertion. The distinction is still arbitrary. “The negative atheist neither believes there is a god nor that there isn't. ”You either believe or not. There is no middle ground (Law of Excluded Middle). Thus, “agnostic-atheist” is a dead-category. “Many people believe dark matter exists, but hold at least the weak agnostic idea that it is presently unknowable. ”Actually, dark matter is a theory (an explanation based on scientific study and reasoning) supported by evidence that is inferred to exist from gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation [1]. That is, scientists see an effect and infer this effect to be dark matter. It would be incoherent for scientist to say that dark matter is “unknowable”, but yet they know this about it. And because they know that it exists, they can believe it to be true. “However, belief does not require knowledge of truth. ” “The philosophical definition of knowledge requires that the knower believes the knowledge, that the knowledge is true, and that the knower's belief is justified. ” “Truth is a requirement of knowledge, but knowledge extends beyond the criterion of "true belief". In fact, in some cases Belief is Knowledge [2]. Also, Knowledge as Justified True Belief has been challenged over the past fifty years [3][4]. The traditional philosophical definition of knowledge is JTB, but now it is challenged that justified true belief depends on no false premises. In order to know whether or not a premise is false requires knowledge. “A person who believes the existence of god to be unknowable, but believes that god exists, is an agnostic atheist, and a negating counterexample to the resolution. ”There is no agnostic atheist, and no negative counterexample to the resolution. Thank you and I thank my opponent. Sources:[1] Dark Matter: . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] Truth in Contrast to Knowlegde and Belief: . http://www.av8n.com... [3] The Gettier Problem: . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] Is Justified True Blief Knowledge: . http://www.ditext.com...