I'm with All-In Flynn. They used to be exclusive, it's now possible to be both - but not because they've merged, rather it's the change you mention in how atheist is used.

Nuh uh: http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStamp...24/NWKDOikIgIs

If a position cannot be characterized as a "theistic" position is it not then correctly characterized as "non-theistic" or...wait for it..............an "atheistic" position?

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

Clearly, “agnostics” do not hold the belief that “at least one deity exists”.

Agnostics therefore as a consequence of not being "theistic" become "non-theistic" or "atheistic".

What is complicated about this?

The complication is the distinction between belief and knowledge.
I believe "God exists" is true but also think it cannot be known.

You're complicating the issue with sematics. An atheist is one whose emotional lobes fire when God is mentioned; an agnostic flat-lines.

Translation: "You're complicating my side of the argument by making use of the actual definitions of the words we are using, instead of using my sophomoric characterizations."

So show me some definition of agnosticism that includes a "belief in a god".

Until you can do that, it is a "non-theistic" or "atheistic" position by virtue of the fact that you cannot show it to be a "theistic" position.

That explains rizeagainst. The next step now is understanding why this happens, and a more interesting question would be how would you elicit similar responses from people who believe in God and under what conditions have similar scans.

I would guess believers in more atheistic county's would fit your bill.

He just did in the quote you replied to. Bunny is an agnostic theist -- one who believes in a god, but isn't sure that his belief can ever be verified as true.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

What part of that is supposed to make me think that agnosticism is a theistic position?

Agnosticism isn't the part that is theistic about bunny's beliefs. It's the theism part that makes bunny's position "theistic". The agnosticism part is a non sequitur.

Err, I'm not claiming ALL theists are agnostic, so of course no definition of agnosticism includes a belief in god.

You can be a left handed cyclist as well. It doesn't matter that most people who ride bikes are right handed.

You are a theist because of your theism, not because of your agnosticism. I don't know what else to say to you.

It's a false dichotomy. People who believe in gods are theists, people without that belief are atheists.

It does not follow that all 'positions' are theistic or atheistic. If agnosticism were atheistic it would imply no agnostics had a belief in god, wouldn't it?

A position that can't be characterised as theistic, absent further information, should be called 'non-theistic' - you wouldn't describe deism as 'atheistic'.
Why is the broadest sense the only one that can apply?

Someone can describe themselves as 'agnostic with regard to ghosts', sure. But if someone tells you, out of the blue, 'I'm an agnostic', you're not going to ask them 'Regarding what?' - you will know they mean with regard to the existence of gods.

To be an agnostic is usually to be a weak atheist, yes - exceptions are rare, but one of them posts here and his name is bunny - perhaps you've met?

So what do you call someone who believes there is no god?