Agnostics are atheists

Support for P2 - P2 asserts a relationship between belief and knowledge. I wanted to avoid definitions, but they seem to be unavoidable. Definitions: What it means to believe in a god – If someone believes in a god, then he or she accepts or regards that respective god’s existence as true. [8][10][11][12] Someone who believes merely that a god might exist or harbors doubts does not accept nor regard that respective god’s existence as true, and therefore does not believe in that god. Most people who believe in a god haven’t formed their belief by evidence or reason. Rather, they’ve set aside their doubts with a leap of faith and chosen to believe that a god exists. What it means to know something – The definition of knowledge has been debated extensively by philosophers and is not universally agreed upon. However, the traditional philosophical definition of knowledge is justified true beliefs. [2] To “know” something, a belief must be held, the belief must be true, and the belief must be justified. This definition is workable for purposes of this debate. Problematic exceptions (e.g. “Gettier” exceptions [4]) are not evident here. The meaning of “belief” within the philosophical definition of knowledge is described rather well here: [13] Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn't involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time. Nor does the term “belief”, in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage). Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it's the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. Argument: P2 is true because there is a relationship between belief and knowledge which precludes the possibility of believing that a proposition is true while simultaneously believing that the truth of a proposition cannot be known. Beliefs are not naked, formed arbitrarily or without a reason. Beliefs are formed in a process called belief formation. [14][15] Every belief has at least one subjective basis, be it good or bad. (e.g. I believe that I have five digits on each hand because I can see them, I can feel them, my memories indicate this, among other reasons.) Whenever a belief is formed, a subjective evaluation of certain things occurs and a conclusion is drawn based upon them. (e.g. I may form the belief that the front door is open based on direct observation.) The conclusion is the belief, and the evaluated things are the subjective basis. A person who forms a belief believes not only that the belief is true, but also that the subjective basis justifies his or her belief. In this respect, to believe something means to believe that you believe it; believe that it is true; and believe that your belief is justified – When one believes something one believes that one holds a justified true belief (i.e. knowledge). Belief is subjectively indistinguishable from knowledge. [16] In other words, we can’t tell the difference between what we think we know and what we actually know. Relating this notion back to P2 - The claim of P2 is that “[a]ny person who believes that the existence of any god cannot be known does not believe in any god.” The logical conflict should be apparent – If belief, then belief of knowledge Not belief of knowledge, therefore not belief Or If B, then Bk Not Bk Therefore, not B Rebuttal – My opponent asserts that agnostic theism and gnostic atheism disprove P2 by counterexample. My opponent also asserts that my argument ignores deism. My responses are simple: Agnostic theists do not exist. It’s a self-contradictory and logically impossible position. My opponent has pictures and an article to support their existence, but this is not convincing. His article ( http://atheism.about.com... ) by Mr. Cline states, pertinently, that “[b]ecause atheism and theism deal with belief and agnosticism deals with knowledge, they are actually independent concepts.” No, I’m afraid that Mr. Cline is in error. Belief and knowledge are very much related, and knowledge is contingent upon belief. My opponent also presents a photo describing the position of an alleged agnostic theist. The person says “I believe there is a god! But I’m not really sure. It might just be some silly stories.” This person doesn’t believe there is a god. He doubts the existence of god. Gnostic atheism does not disprove P2. P2 essentially says that agnostics can’t believe in god. A gnostic atheist is, by definition, not an agnostic. P2 says nothing about what gnostics can or can’t do. Gnostic atheism is therefore not a satisfactory counterexample. My opponent also alleges that my argument ignores deism. It doesn’t. My argument intentionally was broadly worded to encompass the majority of religions. My argument says “any god”. It does not say “God”, as referring to the judeo-christian god. My argument encompasses deism because the deity of that religion satisfies the definition of a god. Sources – 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org... 2 - http://plato.stanford.edu... 3 - http://en.wikipedia.org... 4 - http://plato.stanford.edu... 5 - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 6 - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 7 - http://www.iep.utm.edu... 8 - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 10 - http://www.collinsdictionary.com... 11 - http://www.macmillandictionary.com... 12 - http://www.merriam-webster.com... 13 - http://plato.stanford.edu... 14 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 15 - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#Formation 16 - https://books.google.com...