Atheists cannot be Agnostic at the same time.

Thanks Con for providing your rebuttal. However, for the sake of honesty, please allow me to re-clarify what Con has attempted to obscure. I agree, I was rushed to finish round 2, but allow me to drive the final nail in the coffin in R3, as R4 will just be wrap-up.. As for my grammar.. All your base are belong to us! 1 DEFINING THE RE-DEFINED Con has already conceded to my resolution by acknowledging "...in the distant past, agnosticism and atheism were mutually exclusive." Con argues that because times change, so do the meaning of words and their application. Although we see this in some words.. like "f*g" or "dope," it would be a false categorization and a fallacy to assume that the meaning of Agnosticism and Atheism has changed as well. As we all know, these words have not necessarily changed in how we use them. Only recently, certain atheists that recognize their own irrationality have begun adopting the term 'agnostic' to assuage their irreconcilable belief, which was explained in Round 2. Con unwittingly admits this by defining Agnostic incorrectly, once again, demonstrating his own misconception about what "agnosticism" even is. He claims an absolute agnostic is part of an atheist spectrum of beliefs. He AGAIN miscategorizes agnosticism as a subset of Atheism, obfuscating the actual meaning of Agnosticism, to suit his own agendas, even after he admits "...in the distant past, agnosticism and atheism were mutually exclusive." Con believes 'Absolute agnostic is defined as "It is absolutely impossible to know if God exists. Therefore, I do not believe."' This is obviously false categorization of Agnosticism, as I have aforementioned that Agnosticism, in its original sense, is the suspension of belief and disbelief altogether. The correct position would be "It is absolutely impossible to know if God exists. Therefore, I do not believe or disbelieve." 2. LACK OF LOGICAL SUPPORT It must be noted, that my logical explanations (being haphazard) were 'dismissed' and not 'challenged' by my opponent. He did not attempt to explain why my logic was wrong, but instead utilized character assassination and a repetition of his beliefs. I will now begin to demonstrate, using LOGIC, that my opponents arguments are not only illogical, but employs textbook critical thinking fallacies one after another to demonstrate his point. Shall we count the ways? And to close, I will reconfirm that my argument is not only valid and sound, but absolutely true. 3. FALLACIES IN PLACE OF LOGIC Of the 5 points raised by Con, he does not provide a single logical or rational explanation for his position. Instead, Con relies on petty ad hominems, appeals to authority, false analogies and categorizations, along with arguments from ignorance to support his position. If Con is unable to provide any logical reasoning for his position, his position is without logic and reason. Point 1 : ". Dr. Dawkins is a known atheist and scholar; he is a much more credible authority than Pro." An appeal to authority fallacy. Further Dawkins is an Atheist, whom would obviously concur with Con's contention. Setting forth a biased cheerleader, as an intellectual or unbiased authority on the matter is disingenuous, and a fallacious argument that should be outwardly visible to anyone trained in critical thinking. Point 2: "Just as Republican and Democrats disagree on matters within their own parties, so agnostics and atheists may disagree as well." Another false categorization on part of Con. The ideologies of Atheism and Agnosticism are singular beliefs based on a singular concept. Political affiliations and respective beliefs are in regard to multiple areas of life. Sure Republicans disagree with other republicans about life, or specific policies, why not? Republicans do not disagree with each other about what being a Republican means in essence - which is conservatism and accountability. Neither do Republicans decide that, since their party is found wanting, they should start calling themselves Democratic Republicans. What is more, Republicans cannot be Democrats at the same time. Point 3: Ad Hominem. Secondly, IF my contention is that Atheists are incorrectly defining themselves, whether it is out of genuine ignorance or intellectual dishonesty is besides the point. If I say atheists have confused the notion of Agnosticism , and falsely placed it upon themselves while changing the definition of Atheism, whether they did it knowingly or unknowingly, they are still falsely defining themselves. If an atheist claims (as Con did) that atheism is a 'lack of belief,' they do not do justice to their own beliefs and actions which is the active rejection of all God claims. (as explained in round 2, and yet to be refuted using logic from my opponent.) It is wrong to accept the superficial definition of atheism from an atheist, if the Atheist consistently LIES about his BELIEFS. Such as the claim that he only believes what he knows. And Con's argument from ignorance is not a refutation to my argument that Atheists have incorrectly defined themselves as being a "lack of belief." As seen in the 3 definitions of Atheism provided, they are all forms of belief. The only 'lack of belief' is agnosticism. Point 4: False Analogies. Ad hominems. etc. An atheist is not 'lack of belief.' a lack of belief also implies a lack of disbelief. The prefix "dis" meaning opposed, not "without." So a disbelieving something,,,is an opposing belief, not suspending judgement or a lack of it, as atheists would have you believe. A lack of belief also implies that belief is that status quo. But no atheist can ever attempt to minimize their "lack" of belief. The moment they do, and begin to refrain from saying they "disbelieve" , then they become agnostic by virtue of their own words. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. The fast food burger analogy does not take into account that atheists willingly lie about their position when saying they are "agnostic" or "lacking belief.". Imagine that you went a restaurant and asked for a burger.The waiter gives u a chicken burger and told you it was the same thing. And that a chicken burger could also be hamburger and both are , in essence, burgers. I find this analogy more effective and I would immediately demand a refund. I suppose Con would be forced to accept the waiter's logic and see the chicken burger as true hamburger. Since, Chickens and Burgers are not mutually exclusive. Con cannot tell someone they are using "bad form," for laying out logical explanations for why a claim such as "Atheism is a lack of belief." is a FALSE claim. If an American says America is a peace-loving country, am I not allowed to asset logical explanations to refute this claim? Simply because an American said it? How far gone is the logic? Point 5: Con says "authorities provide additonal support to logical arguments." This statement is true. However Con has not provided ANY VALID logical arguments and ONLY relied authorities to make his point. This is an appeal to authority fallacy. An example of Con's poor logic is demonstrated in Round 2, that I did not have space to cite, but did clarify above with my argument that Knowledge is a prerequisite for belief (or disbelief). Con's Faulty Logic: Major premise: God's existence requires knowledge in order to believe. Minor premise: I don't know if God exists. Conclusion: Therefore, I do not believe in God. Pro's Correction of Con's Logic: Major premise: To accept or reject a claim requires knowledge. Minor premise: I don't know if God exists. Conclusion: Therefore, I cannot accept or reject any claims about God. 4. CONCLUSION : IF an agnostic atheists disclaims the possibility of having knowledge on God, saying "i CANNOT know if God exists," it would be dishonest for an atheist to reject any claim at all, based on any knowledge that they cannot have. In debates, logic is the bare minimum. And Con has been found to be unable to surpass that bar