Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

Sorry, Tangle, but these laws still on the books in actuality mean nothing, effectively or symbolically, to anyone but the hard core crazies. The hard-core crazies same as you will find in any society, even yours.However, there is a larger issue. While those laws have no effect the sentiment behind those laws is pervasive.To answer the question directly, no, except in smaller local jurisdictions, an open self-acknowledged atheist cannot hold an elective office in the freedom-loving democratic republic of the United States of America. All the prominent state-wide and national offices are effectively closed to the avowed atheist. And you have touched on why. The reason is, as you say, because of a high proportion of its population holding primitive religious views.At present there is only one acknowledged atheist in the US Congress. Kyrsten Sinema, Congresswoman from Arizona’s hotbed of liberalism, east Phoenix and Scottsdale. Even in this she does not express it openly and answers the religion question with her belief in secular government. Not even the most liberal and tolerant districts in the bluest of States in this country have accomplished this feat. But she’s pretty so there is the counterweight.There are probably many more atheists in the House and Senate, and we have had a few atheists as President, but they lie about it since that’s what politicians do. They want to get elected.Until this liberty-loving free and open USA society gets over its backward obsession with superstition and throws off this unspoken tyranny of the religious mind an out-of-the-closet openly atheist citizen cannot seriously stand for election. I fear this will continue for quite some time.But then, a few years ago, no one would have imagined this country electing a black man as President. There is hope.Edited by AZPaul3, : I changed something, of course.

I stand corrected, T12C. My apologies. And good job!

We could have been done with the 2nd Amendment?Oooo, I like it!But then, we might also have been done with the First.I'll pass.

Sure we do. Just ask me. I'll tell you.Theist-Atheist is rather binary as one believes or one doesn't.The strength of knowledge behind those beliefs (agnosticism) is a separate scale. "I am certain" thru "I'm thinking this is probably right" thru "I'm thinking this is probably wrong" to "No way in hell is this right."For me: I am atheist and the strength of that belief is almost certain there is no way in hell the supernatural exists. Others may be more or less certain whether a supernatural whatever exists.Somewhere along that scale of knowing one recognizes that their assessment of their knowledge is closer to theist than atheist and will thus identify themselves as such.I would argue that everyone is agnostic to some degree or other and that how far you think you are from the extreme ends of that "Gnosis" scale lets you define whether you are theist/atheist.I are hard-nosed atheist ... but acknowledge that further information may change that. Thus I am very close to one extreme end of the gnosis scale but not at the end. Then, again, I'm also hard-nosed, almost but not quite extreme, in "knowing" there is no way in hell any new information is going to come along.

We are on the same page here, Tangle, except for a couple small detours. So you say. But we are dealing with human beings here. The entire range of (il)logic and (ir)rationality is available to us. You should not be surprised to hear someone say,"I don't know if there is a god or not. Sometimes I think there may be and sometimes I think maybe not. I don't know." That is your personal assessment of your knowledge. I agree, but so what.Others disagree. Others know there is a god, or some gods, because the bible says so, because life needs a purpose, because DNA is too complex, because god has revealed mystical truths to them in prayer and meditation. Nothing ever said this knowledge, this Gnosis, had to be rational. Let's face it. For a huge, large and really big portion of the humans on this planet rationality does not enter into the thought process.So, irrational as you may see it, there are theists and there are atheists. Some with strong "knowledge" informing this belief, some not so strong. And, yes, some on the fence bending this way or that depending on the emotional needs of the moment.Humans. Gotta love 'em. How can that be? If, on balance of probabilities, one says "Yes, there is a god," then that is a belief statement. Even in the most twisted irrational of minds, how can someone state that they believe a god exists but then don't believe such a god exists?I shouldn't be surprised to hear that from some idiot, though. People say the damnedest things. Maybe you're right. My head hurts. Edited by AZPaul3, : cuz

Unclear reference. My bad.I was referring to that "personal" knowledge religionists cite so often, not the kind of objective knowledge you and I would require to inform our personal decision on the subject.All are agnostic and are persuaded to one degree or another by that assessment of personal knowledge. You and I require that knowledge to be rational, objective. Others accept less stringent forms. It's the whole world view thing.This is a big part of the problem with arguing with theists. Their definition of what is acceptable as "knowledge" can be so different from what you and I could accept. To us such may be irrational, unacceptable, neigh on insane. Still, that is the "knowledge" they use to make their determination. If you want to be pedantic about it, sure. If you see the person in whole, however, not the individual situational thoughts, then to me this qualifies as someone who does not know and could not be classified as either theist or atheist. That binary coin, theist/atheist, can stand on its edge. Yes, IMHO, there is plenty of room in agnosticism for "I don't know".

Hey! The Odometer just rolled over! Or is that a postometer?Congrats, oh prolific one!

When did Schrodinger post?

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.I do admit, though, I do like watching the personalities. Us people are fascinating.

What do you suppose would happen if the student ended his announcements with "Allahu Akbar"? Think any Christians would be upset and complain?Your gripe is based upon what you perceive as your Christian privilege. No one else complained because they perceive the same privilege. Along with so many changes over this past 50 years that privilege no longer exists. Not in a secular nation.

Hey, Coyote, I don't think anybody heard you above the din. Would you repeat that, please? Maybe a little louder.

Sure we can. This is America. We can do anything.However, once the speaker defines their use of "god" to not refer solely to any specific species of such the rest of the attendees should have taken the message and acknowledged accordingly.In failing to do so I think in this case we are looking at a personal affectation. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Because he is not Faith, and is using the term "god", as he specifically stated, as not exclusive to the Christian one (which ever one of the many that may be), and, unlike Faith he has done so appropriately. Not every god is the christian god and other people have varying conceptions as to what they refer when they use that word.For this here American society, for the most part, when asking "do you believe in god?" the reference is most often to some flavor if the christian god. But this here forum is not an exclusively American one.In an international, multi-cultural setting the use of the word "god" as Tangle has used it is not just allowed and proper it is most appropriate. Especially since he went to the trouble to define the term so that it specifically did not apply to only someone's personal conception but to all such conceptions of god. Now, THAT is complete and utter bullshit.

Word definitions are flexible. Always have been. There are the precise definitions in technical speech that become more fluid in the popular vernacular. Our all time favorite in this venue is probably "theory".In English the flexibility can get even more open since we have so many words with secondary and tertiary meanings each one unrelated to the others. "Mouse" is a good one. "Staple" is another good one. And, frankly, without any restricting description like Christian or Muslim or Egyptian or Apache preceding it the word "god", in English, can refer to any supernatural being. You may be right. As an inmate I wouldn't know if this was an asylum or maybe my asylum. Tell you what, you find me a recognized dictionary/encyclopedia/word reference that defines the term "god", in English, as solely and exclusively YHWH or Jehova or whatever the christians call it, that clearly excludes Allah, Shiva, Zeus, Baha or the Waheguru from consideration, that makes it clear that, in English, the word "god" can only refer to the one deity, specifically, then we will give your reference some consideration.Fair?Edited by AZPaul3, : had to change the title. Other one was just getting too old.