Agnosticism and Atheism are mutually exclusive

Now my opponent is right, that this debate will encompass semantics, so I hope that the audience of voters can bear with us for it might be confusing. However, I think this debate will be short since it is just a matter of semantics. Resolution: One can’t be an agnostic and atheist for the terms are mutually exclusive. To begin, I would like to define Agnosticism and Atheism. Agnostic : According to the Oxford Dictionary, an agnostic is: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. Atheism: According to the Oxford Dictionary, a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. Now, I want the audience and voters to look at the portion of the text that I highlighted because this is very important in discussing why atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. According to Urban Dictionary, an agnostic atheist encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic Atheist: “A person who holds the view that the existence of a deity cannot be proven nor disproven, but personally leans towards the idea of there not being one. In this case, agnostic is an adjective. "Atheist" has to do with belief, and "agnostic" has to do with knowledge. Two completely different animals, but can be applied to each other. Basically, a person who doesn't know and doesn't believe.” Problem: It seems the skeptic has a dilemma here. Remember the highlighted definition of agnosticism strictly says “a person who claims neither faith, nor disbelief in God.” And remember the definition of atheism said “a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in God.” The problem is that my opponent, as well as other skeptics who call themselves “Agnostic Atheist” want us to believe that these two are in fact not mutually exclusive. However, if we look at the definition of agnostic atheist “a person who doesn’t believe, and doesn’t know” it is clearly a violation of itself. If you’re an agnostic then you don’t believe God exists, nor do you disbelieve God exists. You are “neutral” in your Judgment. But the moment you disbelieve in God then you have automatically gone over and above agnosticism and now into Atheism. Or the moment you believe in God, then you are now a Theist. If you’re an atheist, then you disbelieve in God, and you have some sort of reason for thinking that God does not exist. You may not have absolute certainty, but that doesn’t make you an agnostic since you aren’t claiming that you believe the existence of God to be unknowable. You may argue that you have strong reasons (Strong Atheist) for thinking that God does not exist. Or you may have weak reasons(Weak Atheist) usually emotional for thinking that God does not exist. But the point is that you aren’t being neutral in your judgment like the agnostic is. Also there are at least two question that remain for the Agnostic Atheist 1. Is there a God or not? 2. What is your conclusion? God does not exist or God is unknowable? You see the agnostic atheist can’t answer these two questions because they really don’t have a steady and solid conclusion. Either your conclusion is God does not exist or you don’t know if there’s a God or not. You can’t consistently hold the conclusion “I don’t know, but I don’t believe”. For that really leaves the believer, as well as the un-believer clueless as to how to verify your position. It would be impossible to verify the position of “Agnostic Atheist” since there is no conclusion. My opponent needs to show how we can verify the position of “Agnostic Atheist” since it doesn’t have a conclusion. Sources: [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [3] http://www.urbandictionary.com...