Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

Honestly, I probably wouldn't. I try not to make a habit of proving negatives, especially against people who seem indignant.But if I did respond, I'd just tell them all the reasons that I know that leprechauns aren't real.Like how they're mythological creatures from old Irish folklore.

-- deleted --Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

No shit Sherlock? It means without knowledge. Hence my continued and repeated pointing out that belief and knowledge are NOT THE SAME. Atheism is without *belief* in god. Geddit? In order to demonstrate their error. In that quote, Huxley forbids people from believing things that they have no knowledge of. That's bunkum; people only need to believe things that they have no knowledge of. Else they would know and not believe. I have no doubt that people are reading them. Some, like you, cut and paste bits of them, seemingly randomly and without thought - the issue is that most of them seem incapable of understanding what's in them. Hence your absurd reply , missing the point yet again.

You're both! You're an agnostic atheist. You don't believe in deities and you don't claim any knowledge of deities. When it comes to belief in deities you're an atheist. When it comes to knowledge of deities you're an agnostic. When it comes to summing up your position on deities in general you're an agnostic atheist. Ringo is an agnostic Bigfootist. There is no 'beyond'. They are two separate things. You are an atheist. Aren't you?

I deleted that post and gave you a reply with a little more substance.Note that my position against yours remains the same, though.You repeatedly claim that knowledge and belief are two separate things and yet refuse to acknowledge yourself as an agnostic but insist instead that you must be only an atheist.I supposed I could have gone further and pointed out that the person with whom you are primarily disagreeing is yourself.I can also point out that I am not jar...

An atheist should be someone who says that there is no god.There's plenty of people out there saying that they know for a fact that god does not exist. Those people are atheists. Even if you like to play the semantic game and talk about how we really can't "know" anything, if you're willing to claim that god does not exist, then you're an atheist.If you simply lack a belief in god, because of insufficient evidence, but do not claim that there is not a god, then you shouldn't be called an atheist; you should be called agnostic.

Right.
So he tells you that your stance equates to the logical fallacy of "If some then All" and that just because we know some leprechauns are fictional doesn't mean that they all are must be.He excitedly proceeds to draw a number of diagrams explaining to you why your "positive position" (your definition) that leprechauns don't exist and his positive position that they do are entirely equal in terms of validity of conclusion.Given that you agree that you both hold a positive position do you think there is anything wrong with his approach, or is he correct that leprechaun-ism and a-leprechaun-ism are equal in terms of validity?

There is no god. Ok? There's no-one who knows 'for a fact' that god does not exist - that's a logical impossibility. That's Huxley's point on which we all agree and always have done.The difference between knowledge and belief is *not* merely semantics - it's real. One is something that can be tested and backed by evidence. The other is an emotion. You can't simply dismiss it as a mere word - it describes a state-of-mind. But I DO claim there is no god. I just do it from a belief position not knowledge. Surely this can't be this hard?

Yeh, well that would be because I don't believe in god, I guess.

Everyone is both! No-one can prove the non-existence of god, it's a logical impossibility. The term agnostic is utterly redundant - it just gives non-believers a less offensive position in society.When people say that they believe or don't believe in god, they're not doing it from any evidenced based, scientific knowledge. That's the only thing Huxley got right.

Tangle entangles a bit more: Let's reconsider the Dawkins scale, which runs from a 1.0 (Strong Atheist who "believes fully without doubt" the supernatural does NOT exist) up to a 7.0 (Strong Believer who "believes fully without doubt" the supernatural does exist).Would it be fair to characterize your semantical argument here in this thread as ??Maybe we could include the 6's and the 2's.
6's and 2's live their lives as if they are 7's or 1's respectively.So then it would be ???What if I will only believe stuff if there is Edited by xongsmith, : 3rd thought

No. Because I don't accept any scale. As I've said, belief in god is binary. Ho hum. If you have 'sound evidence based scientific knowledge' for the existence of god, there is no requirement to believe anything. You accept it as a fact. Belief only come into play in the *absence* of evidence.Ringo explains it. He does not know Bigfoot exists because he doesn't have the evidence, but he believes it does anyway. When a live Bigfoot is brought to his local zoo, he' should say "I believed in you, but now I don't need to."The bible, get's it right (which it does quite a lot actually.) Although it too muggles belief with knowledge for the sake of a good story.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Well I'm not. I am an agnostic theist. It's not about proving. It's about claims to knowledge. The reality of the matter is irrelevant. An agnostic does not claim knowledge. Others may claim knowledge. Whether they are right or wrong and basing their 'knowledge' on science or utter nonsense doesn't matter. It's not redundant. Because there are people who actually claim to know. They aren't agnostics.The word 'agnostic' has meaning and is only redundant if written twice.

Belief doesn't mean what you think it means.

Which, of course, just resolves to theist.'Do you believe in god?' 'Yes.'You don't actually say 'well I don't actually have rigourous scientific proof, but even so, and pending further information, I believe in god anyway.' I think you're finally getting it. Well it rather does matter doesn't it? You see words have meanings. Knowedge is stuff we can evidence and pass on to others and can be shown to be objectively correct - or at least it is in Huxley and my definition. If it means something else we tend to file it in the same box as belief. If they actually had real, transferrable, non-personal, knowledge we'd all be theists. ref Doubting Thomas. Sure, there are billions that claim to know. Faith is a prime example. But we all 'know' that what they claim to know is totally subjective delusional bollocks - otherwise called belief. The word agnostic was invented in the mid 19th century by an atheist.