[Phoenix1010]

I continue, because I can't stop myself.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is this: If you're an atheist for no reason other then you're not a theist, you're basically an agnostic.

By just calling atheists non-theists, you saying agnostics are atheists as well, which is a distinction many would disagree with. After all, if we're going to say that agnostics are just atheists, why even distinguish between the two?

There has to be something more to being an atheist then just being a non-theist, otherwise, we should just call them all agnostics or vice-versa.

[/ QUOTE ]


Atheist means non-theist. Without theism. That's it.

Agnostic, coined by Sir Thomas Huxley in 1869, describes an assumption that questions of 'gnosis,' knowledge of God, are fundamentally beyond human understanding.

Therefore, as you say, atheism and agnosticism are not mutally exclusive. In fact, all agnostics of the original definition are atheists. However, a person can be an atheist because he believes he knows that theism is wrong. He thinks that he has the answer, so he is not an agnostic, but he is not a theist, so he is still an atheist. Therefore, while traditional agnosticism can be called a subset of atheism (misinterpretation of the word might make people disagree with the statement, but it is what it is), they are not the same thing. All squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are not squares.

Furthermore, there is a new form of agnosticism called agnostic theism whereby one believes that God exists, but we cannot know his nature. This subset of agnosticism exists far outside the realm of atheism.

So there you have it. They are two different terms with two different meanings. Whether you think it's useful to keep them separate is another issue, but since they have two different meanings, I don't see how you can arge that.

"Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being."