Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

Because it's intellectually dishonest. It's like a homosexual in a heterosexual marriage; done because of societal pressures not disposition. Yet if people that say they are agnostic but aren't 'came out', the societal pressure to conform to a belief system they don't sign up to would diminish and eventually you might find yourself in a less bigoted society where atheists (and non-Christians) might be able to get elected.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

I think you're overstating the case. I suppose that there may well be people who refer to themselves as agnostic, because of a perceived stigma associated with the term "atheist", but there will equally be many who use the Merriam Webster definition of "atheist", and feel that the definition does not describe their views - because whilst they lack a belief in any god, they equally do not believe that there are no gods.Those people aren't conforming to a belief system they don't sign up to. In fact, by refusing to be labelled as part of a group, whose beliefs they don't share, they are actually refusing to conform to a belief system they don't sign up to.This is all an issue of labels and differing definitions. And whilst there may be a certain stigma attached to the word "atheist" - I'm sure that there is - I think that by limiting the range of human views in this area to a binary choice between believer and atheist, you aren't fairly reflecting that range, and are increasing the stigma attached to atheism.I agree with a lot of what you have said - but I do think that a view that there are no gods is different from having no belief that there are no gods - and I think that it is reasonable to distinguish them. I do not see the latter group as being akin to a homosexual in a heterosexual marriage.Edited by vimesey, : Few more thoughts

I have already said repeatedly that in common everyday usage (on the rare occasion that such things come up) I use terminology in the way that Cat Sci is insisting it must be used. Because that is very arguably the modern mainstream social convention.However there is a reasoned case for using terminology in the way that Tangle is advocating. Especially in the context of debates about belief or the lack thereof. Contexts where atheism or a-leprechaun-ism or a-unicorn-ism or indeed any other a-ism one can name, should be judged on their merits on a terminological level playing field.The idiotic insistence in this thread that deviating from anything other than RAZD's or Cat Sci's preferred definition is some sort of radical act of outlandish fundamentalism - Is just hyperbolic nonsense. And when those that are insisting on their 'one true definition' start telling others that they are being dogmatic - Well the hypocrisy burns (to throw that phrase back where it came from).Using a-ist terminology to refer simply to a lack of belief in something is well established, widespread and perfectly legitimate. The fact that people are getting so upset by what is effectively a semantic argument just goes to show how deeply rooted the resistance to holding theistic beliefs as no more privileged than any other, really is.

Please don't lie about my position. Quote me saying anything like that or retract it.I've repeatedly said that the other usage works and can be used, I just think that my way is better and I explained why.Tangle is the one insisting that his usage is the one that must be used. His only argument has been that he is right and everyone else is wrong.The evidence is in Message 570, the second half. That too is a lie about my position. I've explained that the charge of fundamentalism does not stem from the definition of the word, but instead from the insistence that he is the only correct one and everyone else is wrong, and then maintaining that claim in the face of contradictory evidence. You know, like creationists behave.Again the message is in Message 570, the first half.In Message 573, you wrote: It is not me who is insisting that everyone subjugate themselves to my preferred definition regardless of any argument against that usage, that is what Tangle has been doing. He even replies to my arguments that use my definition of the word by equivocating his definition of the word into it and instead replying to that, which is dishonest. And then he has the gall to say:

quote:

---

after I've corrected him half a dozen times on what I mean by it, there can be no further confusion. Yet here he still is insisting on his personal version.

---

Which is exactly what he has been doing all along.And now you're lying about me to try to get me to be the one who looks like I'm doing what he has been doing.Have you no shame?

Likewise, sir.

Oh boo hoo. Feeling hard done by are we...?Don't act like you haven't made out that Tangle's preferred definition is somehow unique or "personal" when in fact it quite obviously is not. Well ditto to the alternative usage. It has been explained to you repeatedly why that usage is "better" in the context of discussing the nature of belief in such a way as to not apply a double standard.So given your open minded approach we can expect you to accept and even adopt the usage Tangle is advocating can we?Leprechauns might fly......

I too have been catching up with this thread with a totally furrowed brow.I don't want this to become an "us and them" thing, but I too can only conclude that this is either an individual idiosyncrasy or if more general then something cultural??

You're so ridiculous it's hilarious.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Message 55

The only thing more ridiculous than the fool are the bigger fools that follow him.

If you're going to depict fundamentalist Christians as a bunch of dolts who've never heard of YHWH, you can consider them your de facto opponents, whether they're here or not.The topic is "Atheists can't hold office in the USA?" In the USA, the only god in question is YHWH/Jehovah, whether we call him that or not. That's all I'm saying.

What, lying about me? Yeah, that's wrong. I haven't. Quote me saying or implying that.Or, you know, just stop lying about me.

Possibly. I am trying to make a sharp point with what seems to be a blunt stick. Particularly in the US where it's obvious a big issue. Here in the UK it's just a shrug. Yes, I'm sure there are - possibly the majority. But I also think - without evidence - that those people, if asked, would mostly be confused by the question. There's a lot of couldn't-give-a-toss people who would possibly self-define as agnostics because they've either not thought about it or are lapsed church goers or it's just all irrelevant to them.I say that they are actually default or passive atheists because they don't believe in god. But if made to answer the question 'does god exist?' they'd almost certainly say that they don't know and most would call that agnosticism. Well I'd answer the same way, as would most here. The only person here that would answer that question definitively is Faith. None of us know whether god exists or not. The question doesn't tell us much about the person unless they're a believer.Take RAZD. He says in his strap line that he's a Deist. That's an active claim - I doubt I'd be alone in thinking that he believes in god but not the interventionist god of most religions. How does that work? What is the point of the word agnostic, if it doesn't define a person's position on belief in god?The point I'm trying to make is that agnosticism as an idea had its use when belief was central to everyone's world view, but following the industrial revolution when science became the accepted standard for knowledge, it became a redundant and confusing term. Correct - they don't belief in god/s ;-) I'm not restricting the range of human views - I accept that's what people say and is a version of how they feel and believe. I'm pointing out that it belies an underlying fact - those people are de facto non-believers and if they're not believers they are a form of disbeliever - for which the normal and technical name is atheist. I do already make the distinction between them - I've called them passive or default atheists - there is an obvious difference between what I say about god and what those that call themselves agnostics say about god. I'm just pointing out the weakness of that distinction in reality. In practical terms there's absolutely no distinction between an agnostic and an atheist. Neither of them worship, neither of them think about god from one day to the next or practice different rituals. Both of us would answer the question 'does god exist?' with 'I don't know.'The only difference would be that an agnostic would also answer the question 'do you believe in god?' with also with "I don't know'. I agree that the analogy is too extreme - but it begins to draw out the distinctions I'm trying to make. I also think we're cushioned by our UK experience; religion is a much bigger deal in the US than here.

Ah Straggler old fiend, Actually I don't care what definition you hide behind, what I am concerned with is that there actually factually are people that class themselves as agnostic on belief because they recognized - and believe - they are not really theist nor really atheist but in the middle, a mixed belief.Thus no matter what definition you use there is no real dichotomy. Life is like that.

quote:

---

False Dilemma

​

Definition:

​

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.

​

Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.

​

Examples:

​

1. Either you're for me or against me.
2. America: love it or leave it.
3. Either support Meech Lake or Quebec will separate.
4. Every person is either wholly good or wholly evil.

​

Proof:

​

Identify the options given and show (with an example) that there is an additional option.

---

Done and done and done again. Crickey there are even dictionary definitions that identify this group of people.And the only "refutation" is claiming that "obviously" such people are theists in one breath and then claiming that "obviously" such people are atheists in the second breath ... more of a car wreck than a refutation imho. Curiously several other people have raised the same objection.But what makes it rather hilarious is that this whole thread has been side-swiped by the author into making a point that has no real significance to reality: who cares what people say they believe, when they believe that what they say in fact describes their beliefs (and that they can discuss in detail if necessary)?Other than logically challenged pedants.Now go have another tired tirade that ignores reality and general usage of words. Amuse me some more.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

If you are willing to accept that Tangle's usage is legitimate, has historical precedent and that there is a reasoned case for it's use - Then why the hell are you still arguing against it being used here?