Are the terms atheist and agnostic mutually exclusive?

[McCulloch]

The two [atheist and agnostic] are not mutually exclusive.

Agnostics and atheists hold different positions, that’s why the two terms exist in the first place.

Are the terms atheist and agnostic mutually exclusive? What precisely do each of these terms currently mean?

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 29 by Tcg]

Tcg - You need to address this question to the countless theists I have interacted with who claim not only to know that their god of choice exists, but that they have a "personal relationship" with their mythological being.

Perhaps, perhaps not. My comment had more to do with the what appears to be an unnecessary position of agnostic theist.

A theist is someone who thinks that GOD(s) exist. They do not lack belief in GOD(s) existing.

An agnostic does not know, and on account of that, lacks belief in GOD. They are atheists because the are agnostic.

An agnostic is anyone who does not know whether gods exist. That includes most atheists and probably most theists.

In this, the agnostic wants a type of empirical evidence which would allow the agnostic to KNOW. (convince the agnostic) but does not go so far as to believe that GOD(s) don't exist,

Many agnostics believe gods don't exist. I'm one of them. I believe there are no gods, but I don't know it for a fact. Thus, I am an agnostic strong atheist.

...
An 'agnostic theist' seems to me to be an oxymoron, in the same way that an atheist theist is.

My mother said she struggled with her faith every day. She believed that gods exist, but she didn't know. She was an agnostic theist.

A. Theists believe that gods do exist.
B. Strong atheists believe that gods do not exist.
C. Weak atheists (everybody else) don't believe either way.

X. Gnostics know (or think they know) whether gods exist.
Y. Agnostics (everybody else) don't.

Even if you're using the system of nomenclature in which category B is called "atheists," and category C is called "agnostics," you can still be an agnostic atheist by being in categories B and Y. There is no system in which "agnostic atheist" is a contradiction.

[William]

[Replying to post 31 by wiploc]

Many agnostics believe gods don't exist. I'm one of them. I believe there are no gods, but I don't know it for a fact. Thus, I am a[strike]n agnostic[/strike] strong atheist.

ftfy

My mother said she struggled with her faith every day. She believed that gods exist, but she didn't know. She was an agnostic theist.

A theist is allowed to believe that GOD(s) exist. That is why they are theists.

It does not matter that they do not know, or even that they struggle with not knowing.

There is no system in which "agnostic atheist" is a contradiction.

Indeed, I never said there was. What I did say was that agnostic theism is an oxymoron in the same way that 'atheist theist' would be.

Agnostic atheists do not believe there are no gods. They don't know it for a fact.

Strong atheists, on the other hand, do believe that their are no GOD(s) but they don't know it for a fact.

You, as a strong atheist, are NOT an agnostic atheist. Conflating the two positions is simply muddying the waters.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 31 by wiploc]

Many agnostics believe gods don't exist. I'm one of them. I believe there are no gods, but I don't know it for a fact. Thus, I am a[strike]n agnostic[/strike] strong atheist.

ftfy

That was rude. How would you like it if I made my point by changing what you wrote?

My mother said she struggled with her faith every day. She believed that gods exist, but she didn't know. She was an agnostic theist.

A theist is allowed to believe that GOD(s) exist. That is why they are theists.

Agreed.

It does not matter that they do not know, or even that they struggle with not knowing.

We're talking about the difference in gnostic and agnostic. Whether you know is the difference.

There is no system in which "agnostic atheist" is a contradiction.

Indeed, I never said there was. What I did say was that agnostic theism is an oxymoron in the same way that 'atheist theist' would be.

But you just said, "It does not matter that they do not know, or even that they struggle with not knowing."

Here, I'll use your rude move:

You just said, "It does not matter [strike]that they do not know, or even that they struggle with not knowing[/strike] whether Christians are agnostic."

FIFY

Agnostic atheists do not believe there are no gods. They don't know it for a fact.

Strong atheists, on the other hand, do believe that their are no GOD(s) but they don't know it for a fact.

You, as a strong atheist, are NOT an agnostic atheist. Conflating the two positions is simply muddying the waters.

1. Theists believe that gods do exist.
2. Strong atheists believe that gods do not exist.
3. Weak atheists (everybody else) don't believe either way.

4. Gnostics know (or think they know) whether gods exist.
5. Agnostics (everybody else) don't know whether gods exist.

I fit in categories 2 and 5, so I am an agnostic strong atheist. There is nothing unclear or muddy about that.

Even if you use the other common nomenclature system (where 2 is called "agnostic" and 3 is called "atheist") I still fit in categories 2 and 5, so I am still an agnostic atheist and I still believe there are no gods.

There is no common system of nomenclature in which theists can't be agnostics or in which strong atheists (or category 2 atheists, if you prefer) can't be agnostics.

It is entirely possible to be agnostic (to not know whether gods exist) while believing that gods do exist, or while believing that gods do not exist, or while not believing either way.

[William]

[Replying to post 33 by wiploc]

That was rude. How would you like it if I made my point by changing what you wrote?

I wouldn't think it was rude. It serves as a potential teaching aid.

We're talking about the difference in gnostic and agnostic. Whether you know is the difference.

If you can show me empirical evidence that a Gnostic knows rather than believes, then we can look deeper into this 'difference in gnostic and agnostic'.
As it presently is, you have not made it clear why that is a relevant point.

But you just said, "It does not matter that they do not know, or even that they struggle with not knowing."

I was referring to theists, in relation to your comments about your mother.

Here, I'll use your[strike] rude move[/strike] teaching device: [ftfy]

You just said, "It does not matter [strike]that they do not know, or even that they struggle with not knowing[/strike] whether Christians are agnostic."

FIFY

You veered away from the context of the subject... you said of your mother - "My mother said she struggled with her faith every day. She believed that gods exist, but she didn't know."

The bold part = "The Subject" the Subject = Belief that GOD(s) exist.

The subject does NOT = "It does not matter whether Christians are agnostic."

What you did there was to move the goal-posts by changing the subject.

1. Theists believe that gods do exist.
2. Strong atheists believe that gods do not exist.
3. Weak atheists (everybody else) don't believe either way.

4. Gnostics know (or think they know) whether gods exist.
5. Agnostics (everybody else) don't know whether gods exist.

I fit in categories 2 and 5, so I am an agnostic strong atheist.

I already pointed out that you cannot conflate 2 and 5. That is oxymoron and I explained why this is the case.

You either believe that GOD(s) do not exist OR you do not know that GOD(s) exist.

If you are in two minds about that, I would advise taking the agnostic position and leaving the strong atheist position to those who have made up their mind.

Or, make up your mind, and drop the agnostic position.

Jumping from one position to the other...[Now I believe! Now I don't know!] might seem convenient and even helpful in 'winning' arguments. but it really only serves to muddy the waters and cause unnecessary confusion...which is perhaps why the idea was invented in the first place...but *whatever*.

It is entirely possible to be agnostic (to not know whether gods exist) while believing that gods do exist, or while believing that gods do not exist, or while not believing either way.

It may be 'entirely possible' (after all this is philosophy) but is is not entirely honest, and that is the more important thing.

Think about it this way:

IF
"Agnostics don't know whether gods exist but can believe either way" is that which describes the position...
THEN
You have something to base your arguments on.

But:

IF
"Agnostics don't know whether gods exist and have no beliefs either way." is that which describes the position...
THEN
They lack belief in GOD(s) (are atheists) and cannot claim GOD(s) do not exist (are not strong atheists).

Thus - as has been demonstrated - it all gets down to the description of the word as to what meanings can be construed in relation to the position.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 33 by wiploc]
You either believe that GOD(s) do not exist OR you do not know that GOD(s) exist.

You can believe without knowing, but you can't know without believing. Knowing without believing would be a contradiction.

If we say, for the sake of argument, that knowledge is justified true belief, then you can't have any knowledge without having belief.

If you are in two minds about that, I would advise taking the agnostic position and leaving the strong atheist position to those who have made up their mind.

Or, make up your mind, and drop the agnostic position.

I don't jump back and forth between agnostic and strong atheist. I'm both all the time. I'm tall and I'm from Kansas, but that doesn't mean I switch back and forth between those things.

Jumping from one position to the other...[Now I believe! Now I don't know!] might seem convenient and even helpful in 'winning' arguments.

I'm having trouble giving you the benefit of the doubt. I think I'll call us done right here.

[AgnosticBoy]

The two [atheist and agnostic] are not mutually exclusive.

Agnostics and atheists hold different positions, that’s why the two terms exist in the first place.

Are the terms atheist and agnostic mutually exclusive? What precisely do each of these terms currently mean?

The terms are mutually exclusive if you are considering just their definition. But if you're referring to a label or a position for someone to adopt, then no, they are not necessarily exclusive (not necessarily means some times they can be exclusive but it's hard to see how).

When people see the two as mutually exclusive labels, it's probably because agnostics are seen as open-minded non-believers and atheists (the ones who don't mention their agnosticism or don't SHOW It!!!) are viewed as closed-minded non-believers. It seems to all boil down to your approach and attitude, the Richard Dawkins approach (the majority of atheists) vs. the Huxley approach (the minority of atheists).