I think it's a properly basic concept. One can describe it, or give conditions for it, or relate it to other concepts, but not define it in simpler terms.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#JTB

I'm familiar with basic epistemology, and the unsuccessful attempt to define knowledge in terms of justified true belief.

If you really want to run with that technicality then there's no reason ever to discuss the truth or untruth of beliefs. I believe I have 17 arms. There's no reason to even discuss whether that belief is true or not. I get lambasted when I try to use the atheist definition technicality though. Funny, that.

When it boils down to the nitty gritty, disbelief is not a neutral stance. It is not a state of the unknowing. Disbelief is a dismissal of something as false. False is the opposite of true. If I disbelieve in the existence a deity then I believe that the existence of a deity is false. If I take the stance that something is true or false then I can't take the stance that I can't know if its true or false.

In order for atheism and agnosticism to not be mutually exclusive you must:

A: Butcher the definition of atheism (as has been done and mostly accepted)
B: Butcher the definition of disbelief

If you want to make the end run around the whole situation and disconnect beliefs from knowledge, that's your prerogative. Yes, beliefs can be separate from knowledge but when people discuss beliefs they have a general understanding that those beliefs are based on some sort of knowledge and can therefore be considered as true or false.

I already explicitly addressed this in the previous post. They're not mutually exclusive even if you take atheism to mean a belief in the non-existence of God. How one defines disbelief is irrelevant. Someone who believes that God does not exist, but believes that the question of God's existence us unknowable, is an agnostic atheist by the definitions I linked.

Also, beliefs don't need to be based on some sort of knowledge in order to be considered true or false. A belief that there is an atom of helium exactly 1 million lightyears to my left is true or it is false, yet surely it is not based on any kind of knowledge. I have no idea what you refer to by the 'technicality'. There is nothing I said that would allow you to speak of having 17 arms without being able to speak of the claim's falsity.

Apparently that unsuccessful attempt was made by someone that was not anyone.

...?

I've never seen anyone suggest that belief and knowledge are the same thing.

Belief and justified true belief are not the same thing.

I'm confused by your apparent belief that I've contradicted myself here.

Ok. I understand what you're saying. Now could you apply this to our conversation. It seems the application of what you're saying is that atheism is not based on any form of knowledge and that atheistic beliefs are actually whim and as such anyone holding atheistic beliefs can't back up their beliefs with any knowledge.

Sounds like religion to me.

Wait, so baseless claims held on a whim is your idea of religion? That's an interesting revelation, mister Tomato.

It was a counterexample to the apparent implication that knowledge is required for truth or falsity to factor into the equation. The application is that the belief in God's existence (or lack thereof) can be true or false independently of whether God's existence is knowable.

I was using the atheistic perspective of religion, which is not apparent in hindsight. However, I would agree with that perspective as regards the majority of religion, but not all religion. If you said "religion" in general I'd say "baseless claims held on a whim" in general. It may be interesting but it's not a revelation. I thought my disdain for religion in general was rather common knowledge.

So if we cut away all the extra gobbledy****, if atheism is to not be mutually exclusive of agnosticism then atheism cannot be based on knowledge and must be a belief held completely irrespective of the facts and of reality. One cannot support or back up his beliefs in any factual manner. If he does he makes his atheism mutually exclusive of agnosticism.

Edit: LOL @ that censorship

Edit: Actually, that perspective on religion is actually also held by the bible. If you would actually read what the bible has to say about religion, both modern and historic, you'd see that the bible holds the majority of religion, even nominally "Christian" religions in the lowest disregard possible.