Agnostics are atheists

MY ROUND 2 SOURCES MISFORMATTED! Correct formatting found here:http://justpaste.it... While Pro wastes 4 sources on some pointless definition of belief in god meaning one assumes god exists, Pro forgets to address my case and his rebuttals are too weak to affect it. Pro states that to know something, you must first believe in it and have that belief proven to be true via justification of some kind. This is correct as those who know something must also believe in it. That is why gnostic Theists both know and believe in god's existence while gnostic atheists know and believe in there being no god in this reality. What Pro fails to see is that while one must believe in something to know it, one can believe in something that they do not know. Knowledge involves certainty and clear experience of something being true.[1] On the other hand belief is an assumed truth taken on faith and conviction.[1][2] If one believes in god, or a an absence of god, but does not have any proof or justification for the opposite viewpoint being untrue, they are considered agnostic especially if they admit to it. Agnosticism, in short, is the view that the existence of God is impossible to be known or proven.[3] Consequently, since even Pro himself admits that proof is essential to knowledge and that belief is not knowledge itself, Pro concedes that belief without proof is a belief without knowledge and that belief can exist without one having knowledge of its truth or fallacy. If I state 'I do not know if god exists or not but I place faith and conviction in the idea that the god of my religion does exist' I am an agnostic Theist.[4] If I state 'I know for certain that evidence and reasoning lead to the conclusion that there is undoubtedly not a god in existence within this reality' then I am a gnostic atheist which is very different from agnostic atheism.[5] Pro states that agnostic Theists do not exist because the position is self-contradictory. Pro goes on to say that knowledge is contingent (which means dependent on[6]) belief. What Pro fails to realize is that while knowledge depend son belief, belief does not depend on knowledge at all. This is why agnostic Theism is a very plausible outlook for one to have and is not self-contradictory at all. Pro states that the person doubts the existence of god because they accept that they may be wrong. This is utterly false and Pro never explained why this would be true. One accepting oneself to be possibly wrong is not the same as one admitting that one is certainly wrong. Doubt of the doubt is the very reason that the agnostic atheism and agnostic Theist exist in the first place and is something that Pro failed to address entirely. Pro states that gnostic atheism is self-contradictory but didn't give a single argument or justification in support of this allegation so, in the words of a gnostic atheist, Mr. Hitchens himself, that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.[7] Thus, I shall dismiss Pro's claim that gnostic atheism is self-contradictory as Pro never bothered to give any evidence or proof to justify the claim. Sources: [1] http://hermetic.com... [2] http://changingminds.org... [3] http://www.gotquestions.org... [4] http://atheism.about.com... [5] http://atheism.wikia.com... [6] http://dictionary.reference.com... [7] http://www.goodreads.com...