Agnosticism can not support its claims with facts and evidence

As I begin my final response, I would like to take this time to stress to my opponent that I did not accuse him of re-defining agnosticism. Rather, I stated that he seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of agnosticism that requires greater explanation than the definition he provided. I have no problem with the definition he provided, but his misguided perception of what agnosticism is or isn't was necessary to correct.Also, I would like to further stress that agnosticism is not "knowing" and "not knowing" two opposing statements as simultaneously true. As I stated in my previous response, "I do not know if God exists. Period." Again, this statement is not contradictory. It simply means that from all the evidence that I have seen, whether historically, scientifically, or even philosophically, I withhold my judgment about the existence of God because I personally have yet to see sufficient evidence and cause for belief in such a being.Finally, I have accepted the burden of proof from the beginning of this debate and have demonstrated that agnosticism is an logically sound. And again, it is possible to for one to be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Agnosticism is not mutually exclusive to atheism or theism [1]. In maintaining that one cannot be an agnostic theist/atheist, my opponent is committing an Argument by Assertion [2].On RussellPro infers that I stated that Bertrand Russell created the Law of Noncontradiction. I made no such inference. I said that Russell employed the LONC in a theorem of propositional logic that he co-proposed.Why Don't I Know?In his last post Pro said, "What matters if the justification for that position. His position is a conclusion based upon 'X' amount of evidence. If he believes that his conclusion: 'I don’t know', then he needs to give positive arguments for why he doesn’t know." From 1992 to 2007, I was absolutely certain, beyond the shadow of a doubt that I knew who God was, namely Jesus Christ. Even when the evidence against his existence became so overwhelming, I maintained my faith, mostly out of fear of eternal damnation. But after years of looking for the evidence and finding it unconvincing, I left Christianity. This decision was based on my knowledge of astronomy and science, lack of data confirming Jesus as a historic person, parallels between Judeo-Christianity and other ancient religions, and the moral failures of Judeo-Christianity.I mentioned Noah's Ark was most likely lifted from Sumarian and Akkadian epics like Gilgamesh and Atra-hasis, but I'll provide more parallels in "Religious Trends" below. But before I do, I'd like to follow up on science. My opponent now seems to infer that the Bible is not a science book. If so, then why hold Christianity as true scientifically? Moreover, is he saying that an elephant can hold 12,000 gallons of water in its trunk? Also, why does the Bible not draw a distinction between locusts and say, ants, flies or ladybugs when it refers to insects as having four legs?So there are two questions that I would like to my opponent to answer in the comments section. First, does he believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Second, does he believe that the universe young, between 6,000 and 10,000 years old? There are many more items I could touch on scientifically, but I simply can't due to lack of character space.More on MoralityAs I read Pro's description of the Divine Command Theory, I remember why I am often horrified why anyone would continue to use such a barbaric and fanciful ideology as the basis for divine authorship for morality at the hands of the Christian deity. While I am aware that Craig did not create the DCT, once again I find it absolutely appalling that Christians like Pro continue to prop him up as their champion of reason when his arguments are so morally reprehensible and logically fallacious.Take for example WLC's article, Slaughter of the Canaanites [3]. In this article, WLC creates a breathtaking moral quagmire for himself and his followers. The purpose of his article is to address the nightmarish brutality visited on the Canaanites by the Israelites. Craig's apologetics even stuns some Christians, let alone anyone with a sound moral compass. He states, "So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing."It isn't the men, women, children or infants that Craig wants us to feel compassion for, but the Israelite soldiers who butchered these families. This is absolutely outrageous! But the hole WLC digs for himself gets even deeper when earlier in the article he says, "On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command."I'm a nutshell, WLC commits yet another logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad Baculum, or Might Makes Right [4]. In fact, the entirety of DCT could be viewed such a fallacy. If you or I committed acts of genocide, we'd be on death row, but since it's Craig's god we're talking about here, eh, what the heck? Let's give him a break. Such thinking is abhorrent and absurd!Also, Con says that I failed to mention any of the dozens of atrocities committed by the god of the Bible. I can only put so much into 10,000 characters, but here are some. Hos. 9:16, Ex. 21:20-21, Ex. 13:2, Judges 21:10-24, Num. 31:7-18, and Deut. 22:23-29. These are only a handful and I could go on. But ask yourself, is murdering a rape victim morally acceptable? Or is it okay to kill a child who hits their parents?Also, I think that the fact that my opponent did not answer my previous questions regarding morality proves my point that morality does not come from his god. Rather, morality is perfectly explained as a natural by-product of evolutionary biology [5].Religious Trends When we look at the Mediterranean and the ancient Near East around 2,000 years ago, we see that the region was a hotbed of religious fervor. Trade routes in the region allowed for the free flow of religions, which often merged, and usually Hellenistic ideas were the centerpiece.For example, Serapis resulted from the marriage of Greek and Egyptian religions [6]. And we know that the Romans adopted and renamed the Greek pantheon as their their own. We also know that the ancient Hebrews had a pantheon of their own, from which the war god, Yahweh, became their sole god.Why then is it so difficult to imagine Persian, Greek, and Egyptian gods influencing the creation of a new god, namely Jesus? Have we become so far removed from our common sensibilities that we lost our critic thought when it comes to religious indoctrination?Parallels to ChristThis is one of the most willfully ignored problems for Christians who will do anything to ignore the elephant in the room. While I make no attempt to draw parallels between Jesus and seemingly every god in ancient Near Eastern paganism like Acharya S. does, there are nevertheless undeniable similarities between Jesus and others gods.For instance, Greek mythology tells us that Perseus was born through the virgin Danae, and Romulus was also born of a virgin. Jesus also shares the dying-and-rising god my theme with Osiris, Attis, and Adonis (Adonai?) among others [7]. Jesus even shares the trait of being spared death at birth with Zeus [8]. This list is hardly exhaustive as there are dozens more parallels I could mention. Moreover, Justin Martyr wrote, And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-begotten of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." Even an early church father knew that there were similarities between Christ and other gods. Therefore, the fact that there are parallels between Jesus and other gods has not been refuted [9].I think my point is made. In spite of my opponent's assertion that pagan parallels to Christ are fantasy, they are indeed very real and, at least to some degree, adopted by the early Christians as part of their rituals.ClosingIn closing, I thank my opponent for this debate. I maintain that Pro still misunderstands what agnosticism is and I strongly suggest he refrain from WLC's teachings as they are fallacious and often twisted too suit his own sense of morality.As I suspected, this was a lively debate and I'm glad we had the opportunity to discuss agnosticism, and I look forward to future debates with him.Bibliography[1] Dan Barker (2008). Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists. New York. Ulysses Press. p. 96. [2] Wikipedia. Argument by Assertion. Retrieved January 9, 2014. [3] Reasonable Faith. Slaughter of the Canaanites. Retrieved January 9, 2014. [4] Wikipedia. Argumentum ad Baculum. Retrieved January 9, 2014. [5] Richard Joyce (2006). The Evolution of Morality. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press. pp. 1-29. [6] Wikipedia. Serapis. Retrieved January 9, 2014. [7] David A. Leeming, Kathryn Madden, Stanton Marlan, (2010). Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion: L-Z. 1st ed. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, pp. 266-269 [8] Richard FitzRoy Somerset Raglan (1956). The Hero: A Study in Tradition, Myth, and Drama. Mineola, NY. Dover Publications, p. 180.[9] Leslie William Bernard (1997). Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies. Mahwah, NJ. Paulist Press. p. 37