Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

I think that the issue here is that you can frame the distinction as you suggest, and band together everyone who has no belief in a god, and label them all atheist. On one level, that's fine - and from an etymological point of view, is a good noun to use.However, there are useful reasons to distinguish between those atheists who (whilst they do not believe there is a god) accept that the universe is a complex enough place, that some form of consciousness behind some or all of it could be possible on some level - and those atheists who don't simply lack a belief in a god, but actively believe that there are no gods (probably on the basis that the evidence to the contrary is sufficiently overwhelming). We could probably put Christopher Hitchens into this latter category.We might distinguish these groupings by referring to them as atheists/militant atheists, or agnostics/atheists, or agnostic atheists/gnostic atheists. It doesn't matter a great deal what label we apply. But I think the distinction is useful, because it makes a difference when the two groups relate to people who do have faith in a god. The former group (I'll call them agnostic atheists) generally have less axe to grind with believers, with little direct conflict between their views. The latter group, gnostic atheists, generally have far greater conflict with people of faith, having as they do more directly conflicting views, and often arguing that humanity would be bettered if people of faith simply abandoned their "primitive beliefs".If we don't draw the distinction, we polarize the debate, and focus on the extremities of the two world views - fundies and militants get heard more and more, and the middle ground of gentle, enlightened progress that we've had for a few centuries gets trampled over. If, however, people of faith feel that some (most ?) atheists won't try to tell them they're primitive fools, then we'll bumble along well enough.That's surely a good reason to make the distinction. And "agnostic" isn't a bad word to use to make it.

It's rather surprising that there is so much resistence to call a spade a spade. The only usefulness I can see in that, is spotting sloppy thinkers. I would expect ALL atheists to accept that we can not know that a god of some form does not exist and therefore leave some latitude for that eventuality. But that is not even close to being the same as not believing in one. The two positions are quite different - the first is an intellectual assessment of our state of knowledge, the second is an emotional response to that knowledge - belief or disbelief. I doubt Hitchins would totally rule out the possibility of a god, but he would say that the chances of that kind of god existing are so remote that he's prepared to say that for all practical purposes, god does not exist. I sort of know what you're trying to get at, but I think it mistaken because the categories do not actually exist. Under those terms, I am both a agnostic and gnostic atheist. I accept that logically a god may possibly exist but I 'know' (ie believe) that he, she, it, they doesn't, don't. But there is a polarisation - it can't be avoided. Most people believe, some people don't. The distinction is actually not with those that pretend to have not made up their minds (and therefore actually don't believe) and people who say they're atheists, it's between those atheists who campaign and make a noise and those who don't.

In the context of the original question as to whether "Atheists" can hold office in the USA.Would anyone who answers "No" to the question "Do you believe in God?" qualify as an "atheist".If so, whatever the more subtle nuances there may be, Tangle is correct in this context at least.

Well it depends what we are talking about.Are there any gods that you would describe yourself as an atheist with regard to?What gods would you describe yourself as agnostic towards?What god(s) are you theistic towards?I think some examples might aid understanding here.Because I think that as far as common usage is concerned most people would be happy to be described as 'atheists' towards Thor and Apollo and Zeus et al and that the "I go one god further" approach is perfectly valid in that context without any need to start blathering on about elephants. Obviously it depends how one defines the triangle/circle/square.

Excuse me? Did you not read what I wrote?I'm the one saying that dictionaries are not prescriptive but rather merely descriptive. That is, a word doesn't mean what it means because that's what the dictionary says, but instead that words have their meaning because of the way that people use them and dictionaries simply report those usages.Atheism can, in fact, be more than just "a lack of belief in god(s)".So I don't need any dictionaries at all. But besides that, Merriam-Webster agrees with me and not you, as I quoted.So how many dictionaries do you need? I also agreed that your usage of the word is perfectly fine.My question was why you preferred that term over another. And I think I have my answer:You think that the definitions of words are static and unchanging, and that if a person deviates from the etymological basis for the word then they are wrong and need to be stood up to.Now, I get that believing in god is a bit kooky, but the above is just insane. Sure there are. People even went so far as to create Atheism Plus.You're of the type that is basically anti-woo. You reject fairies and leprechauns and spirits and all that crap.An Animist, while technically an atheist, would certainly disagree with you about the spirits. There's no reason to not consider them a different type of atheist than you are. There's always a fold, or camps. You're drawing the boarder on your camp to be more inclusive than I would think that you would want it to be.Don't you think that you would consider an Animist to be more on my side than yours, despite them not believing in a god? I mean, they're full of woo.Too, the hateful and misogynistic neo-atheists that you see online these days would be people that I would have wanted to distance myself from when I was still an atheist. Kinda like the Atheism+ camp has done. Not entirely. Agnosticism can be used as a rejection of the god being offered, but not necessarily all gods.If you think there might be a god, or even if you're not sure what to think about gods, and a Christian approaches you and asks you if you believe in GOD, then you may want to inform them that you don't believe in their GOD, but you don't reject gods outright. Telling them you are agnostic fits the bill. Telling them you are an atheist does not. Nope. And he even said that he cannot call himself an atheist:

quote:

---

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last.

---

He is explicitly saying that he is not an atheist and only considers himself a freethinker. That is contradicted by what he actually said. Considering that he is smarter than you, I'll take him for his position as he describes it rather than the erroneous paraphrasing you've offered. I'm not sure why you think you need to continue to tell me that the word atheism can be used in that way when I've already agreed with you.My disagreement is with your claim that that is the only way that it can be used. 'Cause people do use it in other ways. And rightly so.Too, the term Agnosticism, as coined, is a great word with many applicable uses that are being underutilized.

Not at all. You're conflating things that are not related, knowledge and belief.The fact is that everybody is agnostic on the subject of gods, no matter what they believe.

If I can drag myself out of my apathy and reply to all the misconceptions in that post I will at some point.Meanwhile I'll try to explain this again. He rejects everything except reason and logic. He rejects all gods and no gods. He uses this as a mental parachute to get him out of an insoluble problem and everyone breathed a sigh of relief and said, 'thank god, it's not just me that thinks all this god bollocks is just too damn hard,'Sadly, the parachute didn't open because as soon as he says 'I just don't know' he's also saying that he doesn't believe. He can't just reject atheism - using its usual, everyday, common or garden definition - because once he says he doesn't know, he also admits to not believing.We all know what he means - he can't find enough evidence to accept or reject belief in god, but by doing that he can't avoid not believing in god. There's probably a term for this kind of logic error, but obviously I'm not clever enough to know what it is.

Its Agnosticism.Under the usage coined by Huxley.Smart man. Good idea. Great word. And its not a logic error. Its an attempted simplification of an accepted complication.Some people don't want to go into outright denial of all gods (that would be the logical error), so they needed a term to distinguish themselves from the group that was being described as atheists.You, on the other hand, are "taking the word back" or whatever. Dumb idea in my opinion.I didn't understand why you'd want to do that. But now I get it, you're a word-cop

That doesn't make any sense at all. We only believe what we can not know.

I didn't understand why you'd want to do that. But now I get it, you're a logic-cop.Fixed.

I'll paraphrase something that I read a long time ago. I don't remember who it was originally about. Tangle is the kind of person who calls a spade a spade. And if he sees a shovel and doesn't know the difference, he will call that a spade, too.

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

If you answer "no" to that question, you are an atheist (assuming you are of sound mind, truly understand the question, and are being honest to yourself and to the questioner).Answer "yes", you are a theist (assuming you are of sound mind, etc.)The only reason I see, to honestly answer "I don't know" (aka "be agnostic"), is because you feel you don't adequately understand the question for whatever reason. You may need a clarification of the meaning of "believe", you may need a clarification of the meaning of "God", or you may be mentally incompetent and/or confused. "I don't know" is another way of phrasing "I don't understand the question".So the possibilities are theist or atheist, with maybe a little grey area of confused. But aside that little grey area, theist/atheist is indeed a binary question. Not that a reasonably rational person can't flip/flop between theist and atheist, with a micro-grey area in the transition. Kind of like asking if a light switch is on or off - Even when you have the physical evidence, there still is that tiny amount of "I don't know" time.Moose

How about "I don't know if I believe in God or not yet, I've been working on learning about God for some time, I'll let you know when I've come to a conclusion."

If a person is totally ignorant about any concept of god, they are not a theist and are an atheist.Then this person begins "working on learning about God". If they reach that point they can honestly say to themselves "I believe there is a god/God", they have just made the transition from atheist to theist. I think the transition happens "at the speed of thought".Moose