Athiesm is the same as Agnosticism

I have little motivation to type this, because whether TheFool is aware of it or not, she is ultimately debating herself. She defined two words with two different meanings, and has since been trying to convince the audience those two different meanings are really the same when they're patently not. Agnosticism vs AtheismTheFool is acting like I'm somehow putting forth unique definitions for these words, when really I'm using the same ones provided in the instigation. Atheist: "Someone who doesn't believe in gods. "Agnostic: "Someone who believes the existence or non-existence of gods is unknown or unknowable. "Already, we can see TheFool was wrong to take Pro in this debate; those two definitions are not the same thing. If we replace the words "gods" in these definitions with "aliens", it can be easier to see what these two terms mean. I believe the existence and non-existence of aliens is unknowable, because there is no evidence either way. That would make me an agnostic. But I believe aliens exist (not with 100 percent certainty, of course, but I still do believe). That would make me a theist. Switching back the words, we can see how it's possible for one to be an agnostic theist: one who believes the existence or non-existence of gods are unknowable (because they're supernatural), but still believes a god exists. Pro makes the insane assertion that in order to argue my definitions (which are really her definitions), I have to prove most people in the world in use those definitions. No, I don't have to do that. 1) These were the definitions provided in the instigation; I'm merely explaining them for you. 2) I'm not arguing what the definitions mean according to most people's misconceptions; I'm arguing what the definitions mean, period. A popular misconception is just that: popular. And a misconception. AccusationsMy "bold assertions" are nothing more than explanations of TheFool's own definitions. TheFool states this: "Con also claims agnosticism is simply a claim that we could not be certain about the knowledge of Gods. "Yes, because it is, according to your own definition. "But that makes everybody’s claim which is not a priory certain or logically certain, as an agnostic claim"Yes, it does. "which means that all atheists and most theists (those who base God on faith alone), are agnostics. "No, it doesn't. Some atheists are gnostic. They believe they know for 100 percent certainty that gods do not exist. Even some theists who say they base their belief in God on faith alone are gnostics. They believe faith is an accurate tool for understanding reality and claim to know for certain that God exists. I know, it doesn't make sense; but then, people don't make sense. I admit, all forms of gnosticism on this matter stem purely from ignorance, but gnostics do exist on both sides of the fence (atheists and theists). And the same can be said for agnostics; they exist on both sides of the fence as well. Also, my "ad hominem" was not an ad hominem at all. Ad hominem is the logical fallacy committed when one asserts another is wrong due to a flaw in that person's character. For example: you're ignorant; therefore, you're wrong. What I said was, more or less, you're ignorant AND you're wrong, and here's why [. .. ] However, I meant no offense by it. Ignorance is never a bad thing and can be easily remedied. ConclusionMy opponent has taken the position that words A and B mean the same thing, then provided definitions A and B respectively. Those two definitions were not the same thing. Nothing else need be said, but I showed how my opponent's interpretations of those definitions were lacking and how they were not as similar as some people might think (of course, any difference at all would negate the resolution).