See, that's where your premise breaks down. A lot of people in a restaurant will look at the menu and say, "Hmmm.... What do I want?"
It usually takes me several minutes to decide what I'm going to order, and then I am still not sure it's what I want. Even after eating my meal, I still sometimes wonder if I should have gotten something else.
And the whole thread became extremely pedantic, and hence uninteresting, a couple hundred posts back.
Yes, of course. But beating a dead horse constantly for page after page of posts is fun. Maybe not for the spectators watching the blood splatter with each blow but certainly for the participants who feel that emotional vested interest in making the other guy look wrong even though none of 3, 4, 12 different sides in this continuous bludgeoning are actually wrong.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Well I doubt that's a truthful answer, but if it is, I'd recommend not testing it on the wife. In any case, when you do, you do, when you don't you don't. There isn't a don't know.
What are the Jets?
It doesn't matter - if you don't know they exist, you can't believe it them.
lot of people in a restaurant will look at the menu and say, "Hmmm.... What do I want?"
Yup, but unless they say yes to fries, they don't get fries. they are afrieist.
I don't know.
If you don't know whether you believe in God, you also don't get the fries. Instead you get fried. (I'm happy now.)
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
It doesn't matter - if you don't know they exist, you can't believe it them. People can most certainly believe in things that they don't know for sure exist.
Well of course, if you, stick in the qualifier 'they don't know for sure exist'. But why would you do that? The question was 'what are the Jets?' If you have no clue what the Jets are, how can you support them?
Tell me, do you believe in the nggarg?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Well of course, if you, stick in the qualifier 'they don't know for sure exist'. But why would you do that?
The qualifier is irrelevant. People can still believe in things that they don't know exist. For example, they may simply believenot knowthat something exists and believe in it. In fact, I'd say such a situation mimics my thoughts and beliefs regarding GOD fairly well.
The question was 'what are the Jets?' If you have no clue what the Jets are, how can you support them?
Why were the Jets even tossed into this mess? A street gang that likes to pirouette down the street. Has nothing to do with anything!
Now, the really big question is and has always been: Kirk or Picard?
Yet again, what we would define an atheist to be is not relevant to this topic. Atheists normally cannot get elected to office because of what the voters think atheists are, not what we really are. What to they think, however mistaken they may be?
For one thing, many "true Christians" appear to believe that atheists actually do know that God -- ie, the "true Christian" God -- exists, but they are fighting against Him. Well, that just blows Tangle's extreme either-or definitions completely out of the Holy Water, now doesn't it?
Yet again, what we would define an atheist to be is not relevant to this topic. Atheists normally cannot get elected to office because of what the voters think atheists are, not what we really are. What to they think, however mistaken they may be?
But the OP asked why there were still anti-atheist laws in certain places in the U.S.
Re: Know a false dichotomy when you see one. Not theist, not atheist.
Would you AGREE or DISAGREE that you would call someone who is skeptical of believing in gods, who says: "I see no compelling reason to believe in god/s," an atheist?
Skepticism comes in degrees, but for the highly skeptical "I see no compelling reason to believe in god/s" person, atheism is the greater probability. Now that "compelling reason" could be a science based physical evidence thing, or a religion/faith/belief thing. Fortunately, "lack of compelling reason" in ether sense leads to atheism.
Would you AGREE or DISAGREE that you would call someone who is skeptical of disbelieving in gods, who says: "I see no compelling reason to disbelieve in god/s," a theist?
That would seem to make him a non-atheist, or a non-non-theist, or (I love this one) an aatheist. Which makes me think "a theist with a drinking problem."
Pardon me, I had to get that joke in.
Now, you are saying that someone asks himself "Do I find a compelling reason to not believe in God?"? Answer to self: "I do not find a compelling reason to not believe in God. That must make me a theist". Thinks a bit more: "Wait a minute!!! "The question should be, do I find a compelling reason to believe in God? Now, if I say "yes", that makes me a theist and also gives me a compelling reason to disbelieve in God.
Believing in something because you can't come up with a reason TO NOT believe in it is not a rational thought process.
Not believing in something because you can't come up with a reason TO believe in it is not a rational thought process.
Added by edit - For the two sentences immediately above, I did a copy of the first, to paste and modify to be the second. In doing such I neglected to remove one "not". The second sentence was intended to be "Not believing in something because you can't come up with a reason TO believe in it is a rational thought process". - End of added by edit.
Your second question does not make rational sense, although I guess it does make irrational sense.
What happens when you are skeptical of both? Because there is no compelling reason to either believe or disbelieve?
You're an atheist. No compelling reason to believe is "not theist" = "atheist". One does not need a compelling reason to disbelieve. To go from "theist" to "atheist" only requires a lack of a compelling reason to believe.
Believes in God - Theist.
Does not believe in God - Atheist.
Does not know if he believes in God (does not know that he is a believer) - Not a (rational) theist, that means atheist.
Does not know if he disbelieves in God - Irrelevant.
Has all kinds of problems knowing what he believes in - Crazy person.
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Typo fix ("also" to "all")
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit in red.
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
Are there still anti-atheist laws and anti-atheist state-constitutional provisions? Yes, they do still exist. Do they actually matter in any practical way? No, of course not.
Now, that is the question that was answered very early on. OK. But that was not my question.
Now, my question. Here it is again:
DWise1 writes:
Atheists normally cannot get elected to office because of what the voters think atheists are, not what we really are. What to they think, however mistaken they may be?
OK, a slight correction: "What do they think, however mistaken they may be?"
But the OP asked why there were still anti-atheist laws in certain places in the U.S.
Yes, that is true.
Inertia was one answer. Yes, that has its merits. But it does not even begin to answer the question of the topic: "Atheists can't hold office in the USA?"
Why can't atheists hold office in the USA? Is it the laws? No. Is it the state constitutional provisions? No. None of the laws nor state constitutional provisions could ever possibly be enforced. Which, of course, begs the question of having utterly and completely impotent laws and constitutional provisions -- come to think of it, hasn't the inability to enforce a law been used as a reason for overturning it?
No, the reason why atheists cannot hold office in the USA is because of ... are you ready? ... what the voters think!
So then what do those voters think about atheists? Will it be anything even remotely like what Tangle's been trying to push here? No, nope, nah. Tangle is trying to overthink everything. Do the voters overthink the question? Do they overthink anything? Do they even ever think about anything?
Please remember that many voters are very likely to think that atheists do actually believe that their idea of God does exist, but they just want to rebel against God. Now, just what does that do to Tangle's over-specified definitions?
Edited by dwise1, : a qs tag
Edited by dwise1, : Are there still anti-atheist laws and anti-atheist state-constitutional provisions? Yes, they do still exist.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
The qualifier is irrelevant. People can still believe in things that they don't know exist. For example, they may simply believenot knowthat something exists and believe in it. In fact, I'd say such a situation mimics my thoughts and beliefs regarding GOD fairly well.
Pffnrr. Yes, of course people can - and routinely do - believe in GODs that they do not actually know exist. We call those people theists.
They have however, been educated to know that billions of other people believe the same thing and it the thing itself has a name and has been well documented.
On the other hand, you can't believe in a nggard because you can't tell me the first thing about it. Zip, zero, nowt.
Support? Who said anything about support?
I did, but never mind - it's gone way above your head.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
On the other hand, you can't believe in a nggard because you can't tell me the first thing about it. Zip, zero, nowt.
No, but if you can tell me about the nggard, then I might be able to decide whether I believe in it or not. Until then, I'll do the only rational thing and refrain from drawing conclusions out of my ignorance.
I did, but never mind - it's gone way above your head.
I doubt it. You just realize now it was a crappy analogy. Much like you are realizing the same thing with the nggard. Hence:
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
... the resort to childish nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidence against your position that you refuse to acknowledge.
You have been claiming ad nauseam that it is not possible for people to hold certain opinions, beliefs, knowledge, or feelings. Countless posters have shown that it is indeed possible for people to hold such opinions, beliefs, knowledge, or feelings and some have even demonstrated as much by holding those opinions, beliefs, knowledge, or feelings. And your only response to these examples has been to declare the folks involved liars.
I, very honestly, don't have the patience for such silliness. If you want an honest discussion, fine. But that will involve you addressing the numerous points made counter to your argument and not simply continuing to retreat into the denial room every time such a point is made.
™ Version 4.2
