Agnosticism should not be listed under "religion" option in Debate.org user profile

I will also rebut anything Pro said in the previous round(s). RebuttalsR1. Opening"I agree with all you wrote except the sentence before last sentence. Actually those 3764 users do not know what agnosticism means. If they did, they would never pick it up since it tells us nothing about their religious beliefs. "This is just incorrect. Those 3764 are likely truly agnostic people. If one believes you cannot know the existence of god, that is their opinion of god. It is the conclusion that you are unable to truly know the existence of god. This opinion is very important. If you believe you cannot know, then you must have gone through rigorous questioning of god, before you came to the conclusion of agnosticism, giving us heaps of information. Now, Pro also says it tells us nothing on their religious beliefs. First let's define religious belief. Religious Belief - a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny[1] Technically, it doesn't tell us anything about their religious belief. But if you believe that any option in the "RELIGION" heading must include religious beliefs, then atheism, agnosticism and any of the sub-opinions that fall under these, would have to be removed. That completely blocks the opinion of anyone who doesn't believe in god. This is obviously an unfavourable action. R2. Opening II "I can be agnostic "any of the other options on the list". I can basically be agnostic "any of the circa 10 000 religions known so far in human history". So that renders agnosticism being totally arbitrary in context of religious belief. "There is parts of this that are true. You can be "agnostic "any of the circa 10 000 religions known so far in human history"". However, this doesn't mean you can't be purely agnostic, as many are. You can be agnostic Christian. However, you can also be agnostic without believing in the values and principles of Christianity. Agnosticism is a self standing opinion. In the context of religious belief, atheism is arbitrary too. However, it is entirely relevant to god's existence, which is very important in religion. Agnosticism is an opinion on god's existence. While it doesn't explicitly say god exists, or god doesn't exist, it states the probability on god's existence, which is exactly what atheism or many religions do. R3. Placing"Here Con made a case that one being an agnostic is telling us something about one`s opinion of God`s existence. To the extent that is true but it tells us nothing about whether someone still believes [in] God which should be much more important. " I explained this previously. If you are saying you can't know, then there is no "do you believe in god? ". It's saying, as a species, we can't know if god exists. My opponent implies this opinion is unimportant, in comparison to a definite belief that god exists or not. Instead, it is a mixture, saying god can exist, but you are not certain he can exist, because we have no knowledge of it. R4. Placing II "Also it tells us nothing about their religious practices. If I read Christian I suddenly know so much about this person. I know he believes in prayer, in miracles, in creator and so many other things. This is why it is so helpful to have religion label under information panel. Agnosticism tells me nothing. It is a position on one specific claim. It is like if under occupation it says "self employed". Ok, but that is not the occupation. You can be self employed anything. Being self employed tells us something about nature of your occupation but in itself it tells us less about someone's occupation then if It were not the option. Which is more helpful : being self employed or being a teacher. What tells me more about someone. "The main issue here is that you assume someone must have a religious practice. If you read Christian, you do learn a lot. However, everyone isn't Christian. Some people are genuinely agnostic, meaning they can't add all the details of large book. But it is what they are, and the fact that the details aren't there, doesn't cheapen the value of the opinion. His self-employed analogy is completely off. Agnosticism isn't a broad heading for many other sub-headings to fall in. It is its own, specific opinion. I'd liken to being a lawyer. You may be a lawyer, in which you generally take on all types of cases. However, you can also be a defense lawyer, in which you specialize in defending you clients. You learn a lot from both either way. R5. Function"Quite the contrary. It tells us far less then actually putting your religion would tell. Its half the information (far less important half) and the other half which is far more important cannot be set because of this"Again, you assume people have to be in a religion. If one is not in a religion, you would rather we learn nothing of them? Instead, we should learn something about them, even if it is "half the information". "Since I agree that agnosticism is still some information on God, I think it would be best if one is able to set Agnostic/Gnostic and then put Atheist/Theist . If theist was put then the list of religions would open to be set. This is the right way to do IMO. " As put previously, agnosticism is a self-standing opinion. If one is agnostic, they should have the right to share this information. Throughout this debate, I never fought against the inclusion of these other opinions. But, the removal of one popular opinion puts a large limit on the functionality of the information panel. R6. Misconceptions "accepting and supporting the misconception of agnosticism on the site which very purpose is to help us fight misconceptions. This is in my opinion shameful and ironic and needs to be brought to the moderators of this site to change it . Since how else can we expect people to look into agnosticism more to see why it is not listed under religion of their favorite site. Maybe because it is not a religion. " My opponent is continuing to contradict himself. He states we should not allow agnosticism to stay since it is not a religion. Following this same line of logic, anything that is not a religion, should not be included in the religion heading as it has an inherent misconception. However, this means any of his other opinions (agnostic atheist,agnostic theist etc), which he has been fighting to be included, should not be included. If we follow this, then any opinion which does not believe in god, would be silent. The impact of this is large and harmful. The impact of a small misconception is minimal. Closing StatementsMy opponent believes we should take down a popular opinion because it provides a small misconception. However, he fights for the inclusion of other opinions that provide the same misconception. His entire plan is contingent on adding the same misconception. I believe that taking down an opinion because it is technically incorrect is much more harmful, and is censorship of an opinion. This is an undesirable operation. Citing1. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...On another note, my opponent has many issues with his spelling and grammar. Placing his arguments in a spell checker reveals many errors.