This is not valid in content

Premise 1: A theist must answer yes to the question do you believe in god. Premise 2: I don't know is not a yes to the question conclusion- He is not a theist, and not a theist is the same as atheist Rogue is claiming this is not a syllogism and not valid. Rogue must prove this. My opponent makes the blatant mistake of conflating knowledge with belief. Let me explain with 4 examples: I see a shoe box in the store I believe there are shoes in the box. I don't have knowledge that there are shoes in the box. (agnostic theist position) Following that, I open the box and I see shoes, now I believe and have knowledge that there are shoes in the box. (gnostic theist position) On the contrary I could have opened the box and not seen shoes, then I don't believe there are shoes in the box and I have knowledge there are no shoes in the box. (gnostic atheist position) The final example would be, that I see pallet in walmart with one unmarked box on it, I have no prior knowledge to the contents of the box and it gives minimal clues, only clues are its size is restrictive to certain objects. The box could fit shoes. I do not believe that there are shoes in the box, but I do not have knowledge that there are not shoes in the box. (Agnostic Atheist position) See we now have 4 examples and only 2 of which do knowledge and belief match, so clearly they are not the same thing. Since, we now see that knowledge and belief are not interchangeable, we must now look at what the positions mean. A- is not or without gnostic- 1. gnostic Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... theism-Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. so therefore, a agnostic would be without knowledge(of god). and an atheist would be without belief in the existence of a god or gods. Now onto my opponents definition, the first word denies would refer to the strong atheist position, but keep in mind the definition uses the word "or" in it. The "or" brings us to disbelieves which is defined like this: disbelieve- To withhold or reject belief http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Since a person she claims is agnostic is not believing they are withholding belief. A person can withhold belief for many reasons, not the least of which is not being given any reason to believe or to even think it exists. Therefore, I have demonstrated that the person who she claims to be agnostic withholds belief or does not believe in god hence the are atheist. For another view we look at this site: http://www.investigatingatheism.info... "Perhaps the most obvious meaning to many people now is the absence or rejection of a belief in a God, or gods" Again the or is important in this definition, and the person she refers to as an agnostic has the quality of absense of a belief in god, hence they are atheist. This is simple, when we talk atheist or theist we are talking about belief, when we talk gnostic or agnostic we are talking knowledge. I have shown with examples they are not mutually exclusive and actually create this dichotomy: agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic theist. Agnostic clearly does not answer the question of belief and belief and knowledge are not interchangeable. Here it is: Agnostic atheist- one who does not have knowledge of a god, but does not believe in one gnostic atheist- one who has knowledge that there are no gods, and therefore does not believe in gods agnostic theist- a person who does not have knowledge of a god, but non the less believes in one. gnostic theist- one who has knowledge of a god, and believes in one. I would actually say we are all agnostic, just which type theist or atheist is the real question.