Atheists cannot be Agnostic at the same time.

It was enjoyable to say the least. First, I would like to contend as the topic of my debate implies, Agnosticism and Atheism are mutually exclusive positions. This is why you will find plenty of Agnostics philosophers (whom appear to be Atheists and are heralded as such by their lesser Atheist followers) whom vehemently disown the label "Atheist. " Chomsky, Einstein, Hume, Kant and so on. As I will attempt to demonstrate further, one should be able to gather that Agnostics do not call themselves Atheistic Agnostics, nor do they recognize Agnostic atheists and atheists to truly be agnostic about God. Those who claim the label of Agnosticism, disclaim Atheism (as well as Theism), on the grounds that the BELIEF of atheism is irrational. The Belief that it is unlikely a God exists, given the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. (which is the same thing as what my opponent said his beliefs were. That the possibility is not denied, but deemed unlikely due to the available evidence against and lack of valid evidence for God's existence. ) They key difference here, is that the agnostic does not say 'there is no valid evidence. " the agnostic claims that the evidence for God would be incomprehensible, should the evidence exist. The agnostic does not claim 'there is no evidence. " only that "we do not SEE or UNDERSTAND the evidence, should it exist. " In short, the Atheist lies about "NOT knowing" as he proceeds to acknowledge that he would know, if there was anything to know. He says he doesn't know,,, then continues to act like he knows about God's existence when he asks for valid evidence. The Agnostic is honest about not "knowing. " as he is acknowledging that knowing requires the ability to RECOGNIZE (not gather) Valid evidence. Also, please allow me to rectify the narrative by RE-defining the words agnosticism and atheism, more properly, as my opponents proposed definitions seem to carry a bit of Bias (being taken from an atheist website) as well as a lack of distinction (being a one-sentence statement, taken from a random dictionary. The dictionary will also define CAT as 'a feline animal. ' And I will attempt to show, a Lion is a Cat but an Atheist is not Agnostic) It should be noted, many dictionaries also define atheism as "the denial or rejection of God's or gods' existence. " An Atheist , contrary to what an Atheist will tell you, is not someone simply "lacking a belief. " An Atheist is , in actuality, by definition, by logic, and by any practical means, someone who has specifically "Rejected and continues to willingly and consciously deny any belief in religion, God, gods or any form of higher or supernatural powers whatsoever. " To make this contention, it needs to be made absolutely clear what Atheists are actually saying when making such claims about themselves. At face value, to "lack a belief. " may seem like a fair and justifiable description for the term Atheist, but I would like to point two problems with this definition. First, the description "a lack of belief," is ( as my opponent also pointed out and as I mentioned with my "cat the feline animal" analogy), too broad of a description, which would by default INCLUDE agnostics and atheists. Thus, the definition provided, lacks the ability to distinctly tell us How an atheist is different from an Agnostic, if at all. It's a loaded definition, leading the audience to fallacy. Even if both terms were not mutually exclusive, Con must specify for us what is the deciding factor that makes one go from Agnostic to Agnostic Atheist, if they are both people who lack beliefs and they both CLAIM that they do not know. .. There is little to zero difference between an Agnostic and an Agnostic Atheist. IF we are to accept Con's definitions without regard for clarity, the differentiation between Agnosticism and Atheism utterly fails, and Agnosticism loses its true meaning. Thus, the adjective "agnostic" in the label "agnostic atheist," becomes a mere shell for protecting the atheist's true beliefs about the unknown - which is that they believe it CAN be KNOWN, via evidence ; which is in turn, diametrically opposed to Agnostic philosophy. The second problem is that Con seems to assert that Atheism is not a belief system. Yet also says that he doesn't know. If he doesn't know, and he doesn't believe. .. Then What are his thoughts exactly? Atheism is absolutely a system of belief, and just as any other system of belief, it evolves and builds improvements to its constructs over time. When multiple unrelated individuals gather around a unified belief (atheism, theism, agnosticism, democracy, capitalism, Marxism, Socialism), it is by definition and purpose a SYSTEM of BELIEFS. If atheism were not a belief system, Con would not be able to regurgitate famous Atheists to make his point. Although instinctively, one may assume Atheism is not a belief system, I would beg the audience again not to incline to superficial "instinctive" conclusions about what things are, but rather lean on their intellectual discernment towards truth by using reality and logic as a benchmark for verification, rather than appealing to authorities. Further, Atheism is the rejection of all claims regarding God, gods or any claims made by any religion. Their rejection of such claims may inevitably result in a lack of belief in such claims, but their rejection of the belief itself, must be based on their own BELIEF that the claim is wrong. Less, the Atheist is claiming to KNOW the theist's beliefs are wrong, and therefore worthy of rejection. Whichever the case, the atheist ideology is ironically opposed to itself, and to remain intellectually honest about the true position of an atheist, one must admit (as my opponent did) that all people are agnostic by nature and the atheist CANNOT KNOW if the theist's claims are wrong. So it's inevitable and logical to conclude that Atheism is a belief, not a lack of it, and it is shared by many, to create a systematic set of beliefs to adhere to, such as the belief and requirement of scientific evidence to justify any of their other beliefs. Finally if Atheism is the rejection of ALL claims regarding God, including the claim that "a god of ANY kind exists" it IS, by necessity, a rejection of belief in God or ANY kind of god. The moment an Atheist decides that ANY god claim is worthy of suspension of judgement, they would not be able to reject said claim, because rejection is judgement, not the suspension of it, and then that atheist would in effect no longer be an atheist. He would be Agnostic. T Con's proposed definition of "Agnosticism" is also suspect, at best. Agnosticism is not simply lacking a "definite" belief in God, gods or religion. " If that definition were to justify the true meaning of Agnosticism, then Con is claiming that Agnosticism is nothing but a FORM of atheism. Agnosticism is defined, high and low, anywhere you look, dictionary or wiki, as the position that "it CANNOT be known or proven that God , a god, or gods exist. " Plenty of Atheists will hide their true position by falsely assuming the ideology of an agnostic. An agnostic atheist claims that they "do not believe, because there is no evidence to prove God. " In contrast, an agnostic claims they "do not KNOW, because there is no evidence to prove God. " These two positions are quite different, but easily confused. The lack of evidence is not evidence at all, for the Agnostic, and the agnostic cannot make the claim of belief. As I mentioned, but my opponent missed, knowledge is a prerequisite for belief. if one claims to believe or disbelieve, he/she also claims knowledge. Just as people are by necessity agnostic, ppl are by necessity rational. It does not mean the knowledge is true, only that it supports the belief of the individual, as they are necessarily rational. As such, if you must know something to believe or disbelieve. .. Atheists cannot be agnostic