Agnosticism and Atheism are mutually exclusive

Many thanks to Pro for his opening arguments. Allow me to respond below:Essentially, my opponent is arguing that the definitions contradict each other, so it is illogical to claim to be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time. I will run through his post and break it down for my full rebuttal. However, I won't just copy and paste my opponent's argument as one large quote, which is broken up by my rebuttal. Instead, I will trust my audience's short-term memory skills! (And only quote when necessary). So:My opponent starts his argument by defining an "agnostic" and "atheist". No need for semantics here! I agree with these definitions. Indeed, I even congratulate my opponent for using the Oxford Dictionary, as oppose to Merriam-Webster! While I don't see anything wrong with my opponent's definition of "Agnostic atheist", I would caution him against using the Urban Dictionary, because:a) There are often multiple and contradictory posts. Andb) It is not written by professionals or experts. Bear in mind, this isn't a criticism, but I would be wary of using an un-official dictionary. Moving on...To quote my opponent: "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." _ Pro The problem lies with the following fact: the adjective's meaning stems from the meaning of the noun. I am sure that my opponent will agree; you cannot modify the adjective as it suits you! So, to find the true meaning of the word "agnostic" (being used as an adjective), we must examine the meaning of it's root: agnosticism. I defined that in round one, but I will define it again here: "the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims, are unknown or unknowable."[1] Where, I ask my opponent, does it say anything about believing in a deity? The only belief involved in agnosticism is pertaining to the truth values of certain claims. The belief is in the truth of the claim; not the claim itself. So, with this in mind, when my opponent says:"If you’re an agnostic then you don’t believe God exists, nor do you disbelieve God exists." he is actually being very deceptive. Most often, those who describe themselves as agnostics will affirm that they do not believe nor disbelieve in a god, but that is not because they are agnostics! If it was, then it would relate to the definition.It doesn't.OK, so there are two questions the audience could be wondering at this point:1 - Why does the definition of "agnostic" according to the Oxford Dictionary itself, state the following: "[...]a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."[2]?The answer to this lies within the use of the words "faith" and "disbelieve". These are attempting to say: "not gnosticism", in the same sense that you don't want a definition of "red" to say "not blue". Faith is referring to a gnostic theist and disbelief is referring to a gnostic atheist.This is important, as gnosticism (in the normal use) is almost the complete opposite of agnosticism![3] It is slightly misleading, but not impossible to understand.2 - OK, so what does make the agnostic say that s/he doesn't believe/disbelieve? The answer: [a]theism. While most might not realise it, this is, by definition, where the belief claim (or lack, thereof) comes from! Agnostic has a tight definition and is so often warped into things like "someone who isn't sure" that misunderstandings like this can all too often occur. This leads me nicely onto my own contention, as it were.Contention 1: Nothing contradictorySo, since we have established that [a]gnosticism is to do with knowledge of claims, and [a]theism is to do with the belief in said claims, we can draw up the following definition of an agnostic atheist:"Someone who claims that the knowledge of the existence of a god is unknown and/or unknowable and someone who does not believe in a god."A question to my opponent: What part of that definition of an agnostic atheist (given above) is contradictory?You cannot claim that an agnostic is someone who doesn't disbelieve in its primary sense of the word, as is has zero to do with belief in claims. I cannot stress this enough. If you do claim that to be the case, then the noun "agnosticism" has to have something to do with belief in claims. (The only obvious reason why "doesn't believe" was in the definition of agnostic was because it is more aesthetic than "not a gnostic" [Because that would be real helpful, huh? ;D].)To finish off my case with a polite flourish, let me answer Pro's questions:1) I don't know.2) My conclusion on the existence of a god is that I do not know whether one exist, but I do not accept any "evidence" for one that I have seen, thus far.2b) I do not know and it appears to be unknowable. It is interesting that you used "or" as if that is contradictory. Belief =/= knowledge. "[...] 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." _ Pro Not only can I answer these questions, but I just did! :D "My conclusion" cannot be both, true. To say that "God does not exist" is to assume gnosticism, but to say "you don't [and cannot] know" assumes agnosticism. Still, that's a strawman, because I would say: "I believe that a god doesn't exist", which doesn't assume gnosticism and therefore, it is valid to claim both, with the "I believe that" added. Voila! I eagerly await my opponent's response(s)!Many thanks,JSource(s):[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[3]http://freethinker.co.uk...