Any definition that conflates Atheism with Agnosticism is not Atheism by any sense.

The resolution remains, the definition of "Atheism-Agnosticism" downplays the presumption of atheism thereby redefining atheism to mean something different. I agree he must conflate the two to where atheism keeps it's identity, or sense, namely, the denial of theism. Which on his redefinition, atheism becomes a psychological state only, which is a different sense of the term. Atheism therefore has not been shown to be equated with non-atheism "in any sense." By any sense I do not mean taking a philosophical position and making it into a psychological state. Knowledge and Belief Belief is fundamental to knowledge, not distinct from it. My opponent misapplies the Gettier cases, though Gettier has refuted sufficient criteria for knowledge, he nevertheless hasn't refuted the necessary conditions for knowledge. My opponent's definition of knowledge defines a correspondence theory of truth which is part of knowledge. Indeed even if it were the case that his definition were one of knowledge and not just truth, Gettier cases would still render his definition insufficient, though necessary, so we're back at square one with a bit more furniture in the room. I never assumed a justified true belief is the sufficient criteria for knowledge, just necessary conditions. So his charge that my definition is unsound is a straw man argument. My opponent has not shown that knowledge is not "at least" a justified belief, which is all I claimed of knowledge. Hence that premise is not false, for knowledge is at least a justified belief, with warrant, truth, etc. My opponents point that "Agnostic" is more contextual than atheist supports my point indeed, which is why I didn't argue against that fact. Rather I only seek to show that adding the contextual "agnosticism" to Atheism downplays atheism's assumption, that "I believe there is no God." Agnosticism makes Atheism say "I don't believe there's a God" where the negation is placed makes all the difference. Like I said, it's subtle but apparently the subtlety is not being grasped yet. My opponent claims that all he needs to do is conflate the terms without changing the meaning of atheism, which is true. But he has not done this, all he has done is conflate the two terms, but then we're left with asking still, does God exist? Which Atheism says no, whereas agnosticism says I don't know. And like I showed, conflating the two leads to "no and I don't know," which is viciously circular. Indeed NO definition of any worldview would render such a definition, unless of course it would try to avoid a burden of proof. This is evident by how my opponent speaks of his true concern, the burden of proof. Indeed he goes so far as to say it's actually absurd for one to think an atheist should shoulder any proof. Burden of Proof How is it absurd that I should carry a burden of proof to show Big Foot does not exist? Surely it would be absurd on my opponents definition of atheism, but that's not relevant, we're talking about the actual definition of Atheism: I believe Big Foot does not exist. All I would have to do is show that no positive evidence exists for Big Foot and negative evidence for his existence, or that Big Foot is a logically incoherent idea, etc. Of course I can prove a negative! I can prove there are no dinosaurs walking on earth, I can prove fairies don't exist, not just by the lack of justification, but by the positive negative evidence we have against fairies. All of these proofs just require a good understanding of bayesian inference. What my opponent seems to imply is that a burden of proof requires a FULL mathematical proof. Which is false, all we need to know is if x is more probable than not given specific evidence, coherence, and our background knowledge of the world. So by implying that a burden of proof be a full proof, and by redefining atheism, my opponent successfully shirks his epistemic duty. My opponent has therefore not negated the resolution simply by [changing atheism no mean 'I don't believe x' rather than I believe 'not x' and] adding it to agnosticism. Atheism indeed only has one sense, namely, "I believe not-Theism" any changing of the term, whether it's added to Agnosticism or not is a change in the sense of atheism. The Subtle Redefining of Atheism A "classification of the ‘levels' of knowledge about the lack of belief in a God" would not be a philosophical position, rather it would be a collection of descriptions of a physiological state at best. This redefining becomes, therefore, trivial. Moreover as an aside, surely atheism on this sense shouldn't be hoisted as the banner of rationality and the only truth in religious epistemology if it's just a body of knowledge concerning a biography! I therefore think atheists want to desperately wave the banner of an affirmative position and not just a biographical state. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which, as such, makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities. To see this further, there is an important logical difference between, a) believing that there is no God [belief in need of justification for it's truth] b) not believing that there is a God. [physiological description, with no opinion on the matter] There's a difference between saying, "I do not believe (p)" and "I believe (not-p)." Logically, where you place the negation makes a world of difference. Where my opponent errs is in claiming that atheism-agnosticism only involves not believing that there is a God (b) rather than believing that there is no God (a). This is evident with his saying a "lack of belief." When clearly Atheism is a belief of [not] theism. History of Atheism's Redefinition A brief historical survey shows that some 20th century atheists were advocating the "presumption of atheism" where in the absence of evidence for theism, one should presume that God does not exist: a sort of default position, leaving the theist to bear a special burden of proof. So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the assertion that "There is no God" is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that "There is a God." Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God's existence. Rather he makes a claim about knowledge. Such a re-definition of the word "atheist" trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state, which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. Even my dog would count as an atheist, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God. One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we're really interested in. Why would atheists be so anxious to trivialize their position? Summary Here's the conclusion so far of the issue before us. My opponent claims to have successfully conflated Agnosticism with Atheism without changing the sense of the position of Atheism. He crafted this by first changing Atheism to mean "I don't believe in God" which is like saying I lack belief in God, rather than Atheism's original sense, "I believe [not] theism." The latter definition is the only sense Atheism has affirmed. Until recently, one cannot say this is a blatant redefinition just to avoid the burden of probable proof.