Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

Absolutely agree. My question though is 'are they sleeping?' Is that one example given unique or is the law actually in use, however inefectually

Sure, but that is not what I'm trying to say. It's a point about the norm making role of laws. If an unlawful law is kept on the state books and used occasionally - although ineffectually, the state is signalling to its citizens that although it's been overruled, it still believes its law is legitimate. That's quite a strong signal to the populous and to an atheist applicant.Of course, if the law is truly defunct and never even thought about, then the above doesn't apply. Again, that's not the point - we all agree that the law could not stand. But it does seem that in at least one case, the law was attempted to be used. I'll try to find out the circumstances of that case.

ok, here's the story of the atheist that got elected in Carolina (that's amazing) and the subsequent hooha. Dunno what happened next, I expect he took up the role and left the wing nuts to wail.The Asheville Citizen TimesABE. There's a very thorough article here on it and the general principle here:Alternet.org - 404 Not FoundBothwell was threatened with legal action but it never happened. He seems like an interesting bloke. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Not representing them, no, just talking about them. Not remotely. Nobody gives a hoot in the UK. It never comes up in day to day conversation.I suspect I'd feel differently in the US - in fact I know I would. I was asked which church I attended in Colarado by a friend of a friend that I'd just met. It was as casual a comment as asking what you do for a living. That kind of assumption on meeting a stranger would never, ever happen in the UK. I said I was an atheist and the friend of friend reacted as though I'd pointed a gun in her face. Never saw her again. Luckily.Your question might be better addressed to an American atheist. Perhaps one living in Mississippi - if such an item exists.

Only the ones that for some reason just wouldn't burn....Sorry.

I agree. But it is the case that the guy from NAACP (who I also had to look up, is indeed a nutter) was able to wave the law about. We're not talking about a right to kill Welshmen with a bow and arrow here.But, I accept that the laws are defunct and are unlikely to be a real problem. Still, I'd like them to be repealed if I lived in one of those states - just to show that they care (but of course they don't).

And therefore both atheists and agnostics disbelieve in God. QED

Exactly. The first believes in god and is therefore a theist and the second doesn't and is therefore an atheist.As neither has the knowledge of the existence or non-existence of a god, it can be removed from both sides of the equation without changing the outcome. In reality, there is no such thing as agnostic.

Nope, nope ;-)See message 79.

Any self respecting atheist will say that they do not believe that there is a god but add that that there is insufficient information to totally exclude the possibility.The only real difference between that position and someone calling themselves an agnostic is the degree of doubt expressed.The answer by both the atheist and the agnostic to Q2 is therefore "I don't know."

I'm saying that agnostics don't exist. They either believe in a god or they don't. "End of" as the kids say. If they don't know whether they believe in God or not, they don't believe in god.The rest is semantics.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

I just checked with my mirror and I too exist. I don't know whether god exists or not but believe that it/he/she/they doesn't/don't.I am therefore an atheist. I do not believe in any god(s). ditto above.Agnostics do not exist - they seem desperately to want to avoid admitting it, but by definition they can not.atheist
ˈeɪθɪɪst
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Sure, you're just saying what the others are saying and I obviously agree that there is a personal scale of uncertainty about whether a god exists or not.Not my point.My point is definitionally simple. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god. A theist is someone who does believe in god. There is no room in the middle for 'I don't know'. If you do not know whether you believe in god, then you do not believe in god.As mod said earlier, if you ask a different question than 'do you believe in god?' such as 'does god exist?' you may get a graded answer in reply.But that ain't about belief in a god. As has been said, then confused, that question is to do with knowledge not belief. But as there is no actual knowledge of God or gods, it's irrelevant - the matter is one of pure belief.THEISM. : Belief in the existence of a god or gods
ATHEISM. : Denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings.Here's a question. Is it possible to think, on say, the balance of probabilities, that a god does exist but still not believe in him/her/it? I'd say yes. Because belief is not rational.The point being that even though I can't be certain that a god doesn't exist (rational) I still believe that he/her/it doesn't (irrational).

Nope. Put your fallacy handbook back on the shelf. I remove the agnostic position because it does not follow from the argument. If you ask a differenet question to the one posed, you may have a point. The answer to the question 'do you believe in god" returns only three responses, 'yes', 'no', 'don't know'. Because belief is binary, a 'don't know' response is 'no'. The 'i don't know reply' is a lack of belief.Now, of course, if you ask a different question about the likelyhood of the existence of a god, you'll get a probalistic answer from some people. Particularly those who don't actually believe in a god but aren't used to using that sort of language.

I'm just an atheist. I do not believe in god(s). No one has knowledge of god, we only know whether we belief in god or not. The term agnostic is therefore redundant and misleading.