All Agnostics are also Atheists

I will begin by clarifying that my statement, “A person who believes the existence of god to be unknowable, but believes that god exists, is an agnostic atheist, and a negating counterexample to the resolution,” should concern agnostic theism, rather than agnostic atheism, and that my opponent's response, "There is no agnostic atheist," while hilarious in the context of his postion on the resolution, should read "There is no agnostic theist. "I will next bring forth, again, the agreed-upon definition of agnostic:agnostic- one who holds the existence of a deity or deities is unknowableHolding the existence of a deity unknowable is different from not knowing the exitence of a deity. The agnostic theist, therefore, acknowledges his or her unknowingness, while people whom someone else, such as my opponent, judges to be unknowing of the existence of god, are not agnostic theists. CON: Nowhere did I assert "all theists are agnostics"; rather, I asserted the categorical existence of theists that were agnostic. PRO: Which, by virtue of knowledge, would make all theists agnostic by virtue. My opponent essentially makes the argument that if there exists the categorical existence of theists that are agnostic, then all theists are agnostic. This non sequitur confounds the definition of agnostic with the definition of uncertain. My distinction between theists who believe they know a god exists, such as Bob Thrower [1], and theists who do not believe they know a god exists, such as myself. Because the definition of knowledge is debated, as my opponent has sourced [2][3], there can be no objective judgment as to the true agnosticism of an individual; belief regarding the extent of one's knowledge is subjective to what that person believes to be the definition of knowledge. An individual is agnostic or not agnostic according to their own judgment of their knowledge regarding the existence of god, as defined in the resolution. Further, the Gettier problem [2][3] does not challenge truth or belief as prerequisites of knowledge; it merely brings forth scenarios where justified true belief are not enough to denote knowledge. Regarding dark matter, for one to know dark matter exists, the existence of dark matter must be true. A weak agnostic [4][5] position would hold that there is not enough information as of yet to know the condition of the existence of dark matter. While scientists may hold justified belief regarding dark matter, they cannot know as of yet, and must take a weak agnostic perspective. One can believe something but not believe one knows that that something. 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. As my opponent stated, there is no middle ground; an agnostic either believes in god or does not. He who believes god exists but that he does not know this is an agnostic theist, whereas he who believes god does not exists but that he does not know this is an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism, therefore, does not lie entirely within atheism, as they are positions regarding different subjects: existence of god and knowledge of existence of god. Because the agnostic theist is agnostic but not atheist, the resolution is negated by counterexample. Thank you. ==Sources==[1] . http://hop.netadvent.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://www.ditext.com...[4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] . http://www.infidels.org...