Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

Yes, I see the false dichotomy.

quote:

---

IF
Person doesn't believe in god/s -- because the case has not been made for this, Tangle\Moose say atheist
AND
Person doesn't disbelieve in god/s -- because the case has not been made for this, Tangle\Moose say theist.

---

The real situation is this:1) Person believes that no god/s exist. Tangle/Moose say atheist2) Person does not believe that god/s do exist or do not exist. Tangle/Moose say atheist.3) Person does believe that god/s exist. Tangle/Moose say theist.

quote:

---

Not quite ... you replaced "and" with "or" ... which changes the meaning.

​

2) Person does not believe that god/s exist AND does not disbelieve they exist (neither case has been made). Tangle/Moose say atheist\theist at the same time: a contradiction, ergo false dichotomy. Person is an agnostic no contradiction.

---

Actually it doesn't change the meaning. And Tangle and Moose do NOT say theist for that case so no false dichotomy either.Here's the real dichotomy that Moose and Tangle are getting at:Having the belief that one or more gods exist: TheistNot having the belief that one or more Gods exist: AtheistAgnostics are a subset of atheists since they do not have the belief that one or more Gods exist.

quote:

---

1) While this is probably true for most if not all atheists, it is not the essential definition of atheist. It is a belief.

---

It is not intended as a definition, since it is incomplete, as can be seen. THis is an enumeration of cases to more clearly explain the point.

quote:

---

2) This is closer to the essential definition of atheist, but I think the "or do not exist" is superfluous.

---

In fact the "or do not exist" is essential, because it is a part of the case the point is meant to cover.

quote:

---

3) Agree. Now add a "not" between the "does" and the "believe" and you have the essential definition of atheist. A non-belief.

---

Which is clearly illustrated if you take my points as intended and not as definitions.

quote:

---

Numbers 1, 2 and 3 added by me. I absolutely agree with 1 and 2. They are the essential definitions of theist and atheist.

​

3 is fuzzy, and I offhand don't know what to say.

---

Taken in context it seems clear to me that I was using the common definition of agnostics as those who believe neither that a God does exist or does not exist. Using Huxley's definition it is possible to be an agnostic theist (and such people do exist) but it should be clear that I did not intend that usage.I am not sure that even RAZD really means the usage that you ascribe to him - I think rather that his confusion is based on his inability to understand your definition of "atheist" (which is, I grant, not the common definition but is certainly a valid definition that is used quite widely). Certainly so obvious an error - in the face of many explanations is bound to lead to problems.

quote:

---

Except that agnostics don't disbelieve in god/s AND they dont disbelieve in the absence of god/s.

---

When you start with "except" you're supposed to produce a point of disagreement, not one of agreement. If agnostics "don't disbelieve in the absence of god/s" then they do not believe that god/s exist, and that is all it takes.By the definition being used here, if you lack the belief that god/s exist - don't believe in that minimal sense - you are an atheist. That's all that there is to it. And long-winded posts that miss that point are just a waste of time.