Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

In other words you don't believe in nggards.How could you? They literally do not exist. Until you heard the word, you didn't believe in them did you? What's changed now that you've heard the word but literally know nothing else about them? ((sigh)) The question "do you support the Jets?" was posed to dwise1 many posts previously to demonstrate that his analogy of choosing between two teams was incorrect. The choice is not 'which team do you support?' where there is a third option of neither. The correct analogy is asking the positive question 'do you support the jets?' to which there is no 'I don't know' answer. Support, like belief, is a positive action. ie 'do you believe in god?' This is too vague to comment on If you don't have the patience to debate, there is a very simple solution.btw, get a sense of humour - liar, liar, pants on fire was - you know - a joke?

Of course there's a don't know. It's always a don't know. Sometimes you're just a little more sure. So if I don't know God exists, I can't believe in Him? Would you care to think that through again? That isn't the way it is with gods though. If they exist, you get 'em whether you want 'em or not.

Democracy in action.

If you don't know that they exist *at all* ie never heard of them, you can not believe in them. If you'd never heard of god, how could you believe in him?See above, Jon, re nggards.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Having heard of gods is not the same as "knowing they exist". I've heard of Zeus, Thor, etc. but I don't "know they exist". I know that the idea of Zeus and Thor exists but that has nothing to do with my belief in them.

Fine. I assume you are accepting the principle that if you've never heard of something - anything, but we talking about someone not knowing what the Jets were - you can't believe in it and you can't be agnostic because there's nothing to 'don't know' about, just as there's nothing to believe in.Do you believe in Thor?

If you've never heard of it and/or you don't know what it is, you have to be agnostic about it.

Whatever way you twist it, you do not believe in it. You're confusing knowledge with belief. Belief is a positive position you either have it or not.

Hey Dave,I agree with you that determining the exact correctness of the terminology is unimportant. And I see we have an agreement in the premise of you're question that goes along with a premise of some of mine. I'll answer your's first, and hope that you'll answer mine. I think that they think that if you're going to go ahead and claim that your an atheist, then you're taking a positive position that God does not, in fact, exist. Further, that you also have something against believing in God and reducing it will be a part of your platform. So, therefore, they would immediately vote for an opponent of your's, because they wouldn't want that.As Ringo said: Democracy in action.A smart politician would never take that angle (which is part of why these laws linger), as it's just too much of an uphill battle and, honestly, it'd be pretty stupid to have a lack of believe be part of a platform. Are you gonna push for laws against fairy dust too?You could think that religion is harmful and go that route, but then you'd be the anti-theist that I described above, and the voters would be right to vote against you if they didn't want that.Now, onto my questions, and I realize arguing on the internet has a lot less ramifications that running for an office:

quote:

---

Maybe you can explain to me why the term "Atheism" is the word that you prefer to use?

​

What's wrong with the word "Agnosticism"?

​

And I'm sticking within belief systems and not talking about knowledge.

---

quote:

---

Doesn't removing agnosticism from the spectrum and insisting on a theism/atheism dichotomy only add confusion to the issue?

​

What's the reason for changing the definitions of these words? Honestly, I don't get it.

​

I don't have a problem with it, word do change. And dictionaries are descriptive and not proscriptive.

​

But I don't understand the drive to change these words when they work so well in their traditional sense?

---

Those are from Message 123.

quote:

---

My question is why is that the preferred way of using these words? Further, isn't it realized that the older definitions fit better and today those definitions are being changed so that they can work?

​

quote:

---

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods."

---

​

Which is what the traditional definition of agnosticism is... so why not just use that word?

​

Atheism did used to mean the positive position that there is no god. So why change that word and use it instead of just using the word that already worked just fine?

​

And why can't today's atheists answer my question instead of just insisting that their definition of atheism is the correct one?

​

Is that really the only reason, that they think they're right? How can they face the facts that the words were used differently (with the understanding that words are defined by how they are used) and then just claim that everyone else was wrong?

---

That's from Message 125Many "voters", as you call them, do use the word 'atheist' differently than some of the people who call themselves as such do. I think a politician would have a lot better chance if they described themself as an agnostic rather than and atheist, as it would imply more so that they just don't believe in god rather than being anti-god being one of the interests.So that drives why I don't understand why people would want to "change the word", or whatever it is their doing. If you just don't believe in god and don't care, then what's the big deal? Why care?Unless you're just trying to cause a ruckus, or snub your nose at us... in which case, fuck 'em. En garde! They're agnostics and not atheists. Yup. Also, an evangelizing "true Christian" may come across someone who believes in a bunch of different gods, but has not yet heard the Good News about GOD. The "true Christian" may not want to call that person an atheist, but they don't believe in God, so they're not on the "Theist" team either. Using agnosticism in that case would be helpful.One of Tangles arguments implied that that usage was impossible. And he was wrong about it there, too.So far, the only counter that I've seen from him is that he is actually the one using the correct terminology, so he really is right. That's not how this works at all.ABE:I though of another one that fits with the football team analogy: What if you were asking some if they believed in the Texans - and they were unaware that the team had been added to the NFL? They'd say no but they wouldn't count as being in the atheist camp.That breaks the atheist-theist dichotomy as well.Edited by Cat Sci, : see ABE

Except that agnostics don't disbelieve in god/s AND they dont disbelieve in the absence of god/s.Would you not agree that beliefs in general are irrational in that they are not based on evidence, and that they can sometimes be silly because they may not be true, AND I trust we can agree that we can eliminate some beliefs based on knowledge we have:

1. I don't believe the earth is flat, because I know the evidence shows it is an oblate spheroid.
   ​
2. I don't believe the earth is young, because the evidence shows that it is at least 4.5 billion years old.

To hold such beliefs would not only be irrational, or silly, it would be delusional.Now,If I disbelieve god/s exist that would make me atheistic, but
If I don't disbelieve god/s exist -- because there is insufficient evidence to show they don't exist -- that doesn't mean it is zero belief in god/s not existing, it doesn't make me theisticandIf I disbelieve god/s don't exist that would make me theistic, but
If I don't disbelieve god/s don't exist -- because there is insufficient evidence to show they do exist -- that doesn't mean it is zero belief in god/s existing, it doesn't make me atheisticthus I am agnosticOne is not quite theist and the other is not quite atheist, the combination is agnostic. Without both parts one would be either a weak theist or a weak atheist.Let's take a well worn hard to read coin, toss it and then say what the downside is ...The theist says "the tops side looks like a tails to me, so I believe the downside must be heads"The atheist says "the tops side looks like a heads to me, so I believe the downside must be tails"The agnostic says the tops side looks like it could be a heads or it could be a tails, and I so there is insufficient evidence to disbelieve the downside is a heads and there is insufficient evidence to disbelieve the downside is a tails.The top side is what we know or think we know, the bottom side is unknown (or we have insufficient knowledge about it)Schrdinger's cat is alive if it is a heads and dead if it is a tails. We don't know which it is until we look at it, and until then all you have is what you believe it to be. Until you know the cat is both alive and dead.Enjoy

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.

Nor is the case made against it. I apologize for any lack of clarity on my part.Would you not agree that beliefs in general are irrational -- in that they are not based on evidence -- and that they can sometimes be silly -- because they may not be true -- AND I trust we can agree that we can eliminate some beliefs based on knowledge we have:

1. I don't believe the earth is flat, because I know the evidence shows it is an oblate spheroid.
   ​
2. I don't believe the earth is young, because the evidence shows that it is at least 4.5 billion years old.

To hold such beliefs would not only be irrational, or silly, it would be delusional.So we can have knowledge about what NOT to believe. That doesn't make what we do believe any more nor less validThe case to NOT believe god/s exist has not been made, but this doesn't make me a theist ...just asThe case to NOT believe god/s do not exist has not been made, but this doesn't make me an atheist ... Curiously the initial symptoms of cognitive dissonance are often anger when pet beliefs are argued against and attacking the messenger instead of the message. The more emotional attachment one has to their beliefs the greater the anger ... Actually what I am showing -- the point I am trying to get across -- is that you cannot eliminate either belief in X or belief in notX with the information available. That leaves you with:

1. It is possible that X is true
   AND
2. It is possible that notX is true.

Believing (a) does not exclude belief in (b) and believing in (b) does not exclude belief in (a), and now we can look at possible beliefs:

1. person believes X is true (theist)
2. person believes (a) is true (weak theist)
3. person believes notX is true (atheist)
4. person believes (b) is true (weak atheist)
5. person believes both (a) and (b) are true (agnostic)

Let's take a well worn hard to read coin, toss it and then say what the downside is ...The theist says "the tops side is a tails to me, so I believe the downside must be heads"The weak theist says "the tops side looks like it might be a tails to me, so I believe the downside possibly might be heads"The atheist says "the tops side is a heads to me, so I believe the downside must be tails"The weak atheist says "the tops side looks it might be a tails to me, so I believe the downside possibly might be tails"The agnostic says the tops side looks like it could be a heads or it could be a tails, and I so there is insufficient evidence to disbelieve the downside is a heads and there is insufficient evidence to disbelieve the downside is a tails, so I believe the downside possibly might be heads" and possibly might be tails"The top side is what we know or think we know, the bottom side is unknown (or we have insufficient knowledge about it)Schrdinger's cat is alive if it is a heads and dead if it is a tails. We don't know which it is until we look at it, and until then all you have is what you believe it to be. Until you know the cat is both alive and dead.Now you may say that holding contrary beliefs is irrational, and I point out to you that (a) we have seen this in some people, (b) belief is necessarily irrational, (c) belief is irrelevant to what is real and (d) it is silly to get emotionally wrapped up in something that is in the end irrelevant.What we believe has no effect on the cat ...So be amused.Enjoy

Not at all what I said. I don't know. I don't know what the word means. If you can tell me what the word meansif you can tell me what a nngard is, I could probably get you a more decisive answer to the question of whether I believe in them or not (probably, not certainly). Nothing.To me the word still has no meaning. And it seems like it probably never will.As far as I can tell, you've asked me a contentless question. I've asked you to fill in with some content before I answer.Until you do, the only sensible position for me to take is to say that I don't know. And that's me being honest; not a liar; not deluded by my own mind; but just straightforward and honest. But it wasn't. You have basically been accusing people of not actually holding the positions they say they hold for the last several pages of posts.It's sleazy, dishonest, ridiculous, and has no place in a discussion between adults.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

If you have absolutely no idea what an nggards is then you must be ignostic. As per Message 164 which is (subset) atheistic in terms of not actually holding a belief.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Preferring content over gibberish makes me nothing other than reasonable.