All Agnostics are also Atheists

Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent has misconstrued the definition of agnostic so extremely that he has portrayed all theists as agnostics. This is, once again, not the case. An agnostic is one who holds, or believes, that the existence of god is unknowable. My opponent has tried to make an agnostic one who does not know the state of the existence of god. The difference between these definitions is clear: the former is a state of belief, while the latter is a state of knowledge. Because my opponent himself has made knowledge and belief distinct, his position is unsustainable. My opponent has shown that one person can both not know something and believe they don't know something, but this is irrelevent because these states are not disjoint, but different. For a metal, the qualities red and hot are different, but not disjoint. My opponent has stated that there can be no theists "in the true sense," but a theist is merely one who believes in god [1], not one who knows god exists. While my opponent may assert that knowledge of god is impossible, belief in god is possible, so theists exist. But what does this belief rest on, if not knowledge? .. .belief rest[s] on the knowledge about what one believes. .. First, a person is not agnostic according to their knowledge, but their beliefs of their knowledge. Second, an agnostic can hold a belief in god on the basis of faith, believing that god exists without evidence or knowledge. Third, because belief is a prerequisite of knowledge (as my opponent has conceded), belief cannot require knowledge. The situation, that I am not in belief without knowledge and that I am not in knowledge without being in belief, is ridiculous. CON: An individual is agnostic or not agnostic according to their own judgment of their knowledge regarding the existence of god. .. PRO: And not the belief of their knowledge as my opponent once held? The statements I made are equivalent; someone is agnostic or not according to their own belief, or judgment, of their knowledge, as given by the agreed definition. CON: A weak agnostic position would hold that there is not enough information as of yet to know the condition of the existence of dark matter. PRO: But as my opponent stated above, a weak agnostic is one who doesn’t know that they don’t know – which is incoherent. If my opponent was confused regarding weak agnosticism, he could have referred to my source [3]. Instead, he tries to construe it to a more complicated belief than it is. Weak agnosticism is simply a combination of belief of present unknowledge and belief in future knowledge. A weak agnostic holds that while the existence of god is presently unknowable, it will be knowable in the future, following the development of further evidence. CON: While both the positive atheist and negative atheist lack a belief in the existence of god, the agnostic position regards the knowledge of the existence of god. PRO: Which theists and atheists do not have [sic]. Both do not have the knowledge nor [sic] the belief in the existence of God. Once again, the agnosticism of a person is not related to their knowledge, but their position regarding their knowledge. Before I conclude, I would like to note that the sources listed in my opponent's fifth round of debate were unused in the round. He simply copied them directly into his round from previous rounds. As they were unused in round 5, I ask voters not to count them twice. A person doesn't believe they know whether or not god exists. This person is agnostic. Because of the law of the excluded middle, that person believes either that god exists or god doesn't exist. My opponent has taken the position that this agnostic cannot hold a theistic position on the grounds that the agnostic does not believe he knows the existence of god; however, belief does not require knowledge, so such a position as agnostic theism is consistent and existent, providing a counterexample to the resolution. Because of the case of the agnostic theist, not all agnostics are atheist, and the resolution is negated. Thank you. ==Sources==[1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...; (Definition 2 fits my usage; the others are irrelevant to the context. )[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...