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?

[Divine Insight]

I personally believe the term "atheism" to be highly ill-defined, especially the way it seems to be used today. Different people seem to use it to mean different things.

You think atheism is ill-defined. Try finding a commonly accepted meaning for agnosticism!

I totally agree.

In fact, this is inherently a problem with all words used in human language. Everyone seems to use them to mean whatever they want.

I chose the etymological meaning whenever possible. Taking "gnostic" to simply mean "knowledge", then agnostic is simply "without knowledge".

And of course, all of this would be relative to whatever concept is being discussed. To be without knowledge of some concept does not imply that a person has no knowledge at all.

This is also why I specify that I am only agnostic with respect to "all possible definitions and concepts of gods". For example I cannot rule out the God of Buddhism, therefore I cannot say that this God does not exist. I am without sufficient knowledge to come to that definite conclusion.

However, I am not agnostic with regard to the Biblical God because I can clearly see that the Biblical God cannot possibly exist as described in the Bible. Therefore I am actually "gnostic" with respect to the God described by the Bible. I "know" that the Biblical God cannot exist as described by the Bible. So there's no need to be agnostic with respect to the biblical God.

~~~~~

I'd also like to add my thoughts on semantic in general. I see language as a tool that humans invented for the purpose of communicating ideas. Therefore if humans find themselves arguing over semantics they have totally lost sight of the purpose of language.

If the purpose of language is to communicate, then communication can easily be achieve by simply asking the other person to elaborate on what they mean by a specific word. Arguing that they are using a word incorrectly serves no useful purpose in communication. In fact, when people start arguing over semantics this is usually a sign that they either have nothing substantial to say themselves, or they are simply trying to distract from a deeper issue that they know they cannot defend. Or, it could also be that they just love to argue and cause people grief. Arguing semantics is an extremely easy way to basically argue for hours about nothing of value. So arguing semantics is a great tool for people who love to argue but otherwise have nothing of value to say.

[Dimmesdale]

As far as I understand, atheism is a lack of BELIEF in god(s). It says nothing about knowing whether or not a god exists, it simply doesn't put stock in any claims as to the positive existence of one.

So the two terms aren't mutually exclusive. You can be both an atheist and agnostic simultaneously.

[Subjectivity]

Atheism/theism deal with the question of belief in a god or gods. An atheist says, "I don't believe."

Agnosticism deals with the question of knowledge. One may be agnostic with regard to any inquiry, not merely on questions of theism. An agnostic says, "I don't know."

Because one is used to describe a person's relationship with belief and the other, knowledge, they are not mutually exclusive. A person may hold (or lack) a belief in a claim without having knowledge of the truth or falsity of that claim. Thus one may be both agnostic and atheistic or agnostic and theistic (e.g. "I don't know, but I don't believe so").

[EduChris]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

Dictionaries will say whatever they want to say on this matter; for me, however, an atheist is someone whose mind is already pretty much made up, whereas an agnostic views the question as interesting and open, with neither side bearing any greater "burden of proof" than the other.

I view "apatheists" and "ignostics" as "closet atheists" who either don't care enough to debate the matter or who, for whatever reason, have ensconced themselves in a citadel of verbal demands that could not be breached by any field of open academic investigation.

[McCulloch]

Dictionaries will say whatever they want to say on this matter; for me, however,

Dictionaries do not say whatever they want. Lexographers spend a fair amount of time and scholarship determining how words are being used and what they mean. I, for one, would not lightly dismiss their expertise and say that I'm going to use words differently. I care what the dictionaries say because language is not a private thing. Language is how we communicate ideas to one another. I will try to use words with their commonly accepted meanings, so to avoid as much as possible ambiguity and misunderstanding.

an atheist is someone whose mind is already pretty much made up, whereas an agnostic views the question as interesting and open, with neither side bearing any greater "burden of proof" than the other.

Have you heard of strong agnosticism? Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism" is the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you." Their minds can be as strongly made up as theists or atheists.

I view "apatheists" and "ignostics" as "closet atheists" who either don't care enough to debate the matter or who, for whatever reason, have ensconced themselves in a citadel of verbal demands that could not be breached by any field of open academic investigation.

As a self identified ignostic, I take offence at your characterization of my belief. I am no closet atheist. I am an atheist who believes that the concept of God is incoherent, incomprehensible and logically impossible. I participate in debates in the matter and seek academic investigation into the meaning of the word God.

[EduChris]

...Dictionaries do not say whatever they want. Lexographers spend a fair amount of time and scholarship determining how words are being used and what they mean. I, for one, would not lightly dismiss their expertise and say that I'm going to use words differently. I care what the dictionaries say because language is not a private thing. Language is how we communicate ideas to one another. I will try to use words with their commonly accepted meanings, so to avoid as much as possible ambiguity and misunderstanding...

I use and appreciate dictionaries as much as anyone, but I also recognize their limitations. There are simple, quick-and-dirty dictionaries; there are dictionaries which exhibit varying degrees of increasing scholarship; there are specialized dictionaries for various academic and professional fields; and then there are entire books and academic specialty fields devoted to this or that aspect of a particular word or concept. On this forum, I have observed many people using dictionaries as clubs, as tools to prevent mutual understanding; most often this consists of someone using a simple dictionary to "refute" more specialized academic dictionaries or to cast aside scholarly books devoted to the topic.

...Have you heard of strong agnosticism? Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism" is the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you." Their minds can be as strongly made up as theists or atheists...

On this forum, most of the so-called "agnostics" use the label in order to present themselves and their views as "open-minded," rather than "close-minded." At any rate, I suspect that many theists can also claim to be "strong agnostics" because they freely admit that their beliefs regarding the divine are "unknowable" except through personal, subjective experience.

...As a self identified ignostic, I take offence at your characterization of my belief. I am no closet atheist. I am an atheist who believes that the concept of God is incoherent, incomprehensible and logically impossible. I participate in debates in the matter and seek academic investigation into the meaning of the word God.

If theism is incoherent, then non-theism is equally incoherent. Both involve metaphysical claims which, by definition, are beyond the reach of science. Scientism may be unable to deal with the metaphysical, but there is no reason to conclude from this that the metaphysical is intrinsically "incoherent" or "incomprehensible" or "logically impossible."

[McCulloch]

On this forum, I have observed many people using dictionaries as clubs, as tools to prevent mutual understanding; most often this consists of someone using a simple dictionary to "refute" more specialized academic dictionaries or to cast aside scholarly books devoted to the topic.

My experience is that they are used against those who use idiosyncratic, unusual or private meanings of words rather than the expected meanings.

On this forum, most of the so-called "agnostics" use the label in order to present themselves and their views as "open-minded," rather than "close-minded." At any rate, I suspect that many theists can also claim to be "strong agnostics" because they freely admit that their beliefs regarding the divine are "unknowable" except through personal, subjective experience.

Agreed.

If theism is incoherent, then non-theism is equally incoherent. Both involve metaphysical claims which, by definition, are beyond the reach of science. Scientism may be unable to deal with the metaphysical, but there is no reason to conclude from this that the metaphysical is intrinsically "incoherent" or "incomprehensible" or "logically impossible."

I do not deny all metaphysical claims. I believe that God does not exist, cannot exist in the same way that a married bachelor or a square circle cannot exist. You may disagree, but please don't characterize this view as intellectually evasive.

[EduChris]

On this forum, I have observed many people using dictionaries as clubs, as tools to prevent mutual understanding; most often this consists of someone using a simple dictionary to "refute" more specialized academic dictionaries or to cast aside scholarly books devoted to the topic.

My experience is that they are used against those who use idiosyncratic, unusual or private meanings of words rather than the expected meanings...

People who use standard, general-purpose dictionary definitions in order to justify their disregard for specialized dictionaries and/or books (devoted in great depth to that topic) usually don't understand how limited and misleading the general-purpose dictionaries can be.

If theism is incoherent, then non-theism is equally incoherent. Both involve metaphysical claims which, by definition, are beyond the reach of science. Scientism may be unable to deal with the metaphysical, but there is no reason to conclude from this that the metaphysical is intrinsically "incoherent" or "incomprehensible" or "logically impossible."

I do not deny all metaphysical claims. I believe that God does not exist, cannot exist in the same way that a married bachelor or a square circle cannot exist. You may disagree, but please don't characterize this view as intellectually evasive.

Pleas notwithstanding, I will change my characterizations of the intellectually evasive nature of ignosticism as soon as I am presented with sufficient evidence.

Most people accept that there is some "reality" beyond or transcending our physical universe; something that, in some way, "is just there," ever and always "being what it is," providing or generating the possibilities for all contingencies, including our own Big Bang. If there is some transcendent reality that is foundational to our universe, then we may imagine perhaps something even beyond that, and so on. At some point, we either reach the "ultimate reality" or else the ultimate reality turns out to be itself the unending chain. And that "ultimate reality" either is or is not arbitrarily limited (particularly with respect to information, volition, efficacy, and spatio-temporal dimensions). That is the issue, and I see no intellectually legitimate way to dismiss it on putative grounds of "incomprehensibility."

[McCulloch]

People who use standard, general-purpose dictionary definitions in order to justify their disregard for specialized dictionaries and/or books (devoted in great depth to that topic) usually don't understand how limited and misleading the general-purpose dictionaries can be.

People who use specialized meanings for words outside of the narrow specialized discourse rather than common general purpose meanings for words are either being pedantic or misleading.

[EduChris]

People who use standard, general-purpose dictionary definitions in order to justify their disregard for specialized dictionaries and/or books (devoted in great depth to that topic) usually don't understand how limited and misleading the general-purpose dictionaries can be.

People who use specialized meanings for words outside of the narrow specialized discourse rather than common general purpose meanings for words are either being pedantic or misleading.

What a strange claim to make here on a "debate" site. I would think that if some members support their views with reference to scholarly materials, it would be childish for others to avoid confronting this information by resorting to burying their heads under a pile of general-purpose dictionaries.