Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

I agree with you fully. That really should be the situation. Each of us believes in certain things and there is an immense multitude of things that each of us does not believe in. So why not simply list what each of us believes in? It would be like answering the question of "what are you?" with a short list of what you actually are, rather than an impossibly long list of what you aren't.But because of the dominant role in society of certain religious views, that is sadly not possible. For example, I am divorced, but have not started dating. There is a monthly Christian singles dance event that I will attend for the company and the practice, but not to look for a partner -- that is because I am familiar with the Bible; in II Corinthians Ch 6, as I recall, believers are warned against getting involved with non-believers; that's the "double-yoke" issue. When a female co-worker, Christian, suggested that I look for dates there, I pointed out that that would be inappropriate since I am not a Christian. Shocked, she shrieked (not quite, but also not quite not) "Why not?". To which I replied, "Why should I be?" Which she immediately rejected, but that was a very serious question. Most people (in the USA, at least) simply assume that everybody else is a Christian? That you need some special reason for not being a Christian? Well if being a Christian is supposed to be the default setting, then that means that they are nothing special at all. And yet you kept (and keep, as far as I can tell -- you're starting to waffle almost as much as Faith does) insisting that agnostics do not exist. That is what I protest! And yet that is your stated position? WTFO?However, being the agnostic and atheist that I am, I must disagree with your assertion that God does not exist.First, just exactly what are you saying by "that god does not exist"? Grammatically, that phrase is ambiguous. Lower-case "god" would refer to any god, but the lack of any kind of indefinite article refers us back to a capitalized "God". Just what the hell are you talking about? As it stands, I must interpret that as referring to YHWH, who is one rather specific god out of so many.Remember, I am an agnostic and I've been an atheist for half a century. I do not deny the existence of the gods. YHWH does exist. So does Odin, Wotan, Thor, Zeus, Mars, Osiris, Vishnu, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc .... . All the gods do exist, just as Gandalf, Bilbo, Frodo, Long John Silver, Obi-Wan Kenobi, etc exist, only more so. They are all human inventions.All believers in "God" believe in a human-created god. Even if some supernatural entity identifiable as "God" were to exist, what believers believe in is a human-created god. By definition, fallible limited blind-to-the-supernatural humans could not possible deal with the "real thing" (were it to actually exist). Instead, they only deal with their human-created surrogates, the only things that they can possibly have to deal with. Err? You say that you are, then you say that you're not. Make up your mind!

No, everybody is not a "type 2 agnostic", even though that is the only honest position to take. We do still have those who claim to have contradictory knowledge, however untrue that may be.Tangle is tangled and confused.

No. Between the ancient Greeks and the Enlightenment lay Christianity. Ever hear or it? During a couple millennia there was not such thing as not being a believing Christian. Or do you actually believe that there were about 2000 years atheist thought surviving all that time? Would you care to attempt to document it? Then use the English language in a manner that communicates that!Because what you have been saying is not the same thing that you have just now expressed! So why the hell do you claim that agnosticism, which is different from atheism does not exist?And, no we are not all agnostic. Because many theists insist that they do indeed know that what they claim is true. If everybody were honest then everybody would be agnostic, but not everybody is honest. No, that is not true. The agnostic part is indeed significant and cannot be defined away.

Sorry, but I have not read any of Dawkins' writings about atheism. I've seen others talk about "strong atheism" and "weak atheism", but I have no idea what they are talking about.Are there atheists who speak absolutely about the impossibility of gods existing? I do not doubt that. Would they be correct in such assertions? No, but that still will not keep them from making their absolute assertions.Does "agnostic" mean the same as "Duh, I dunno"? No, it does not.Are all atheists agnostic? Not necessarily. Just because you cannot imagine a gnostic atheist does not mean that they do not exist.

Our minister said that he had taken to describing himself as a "non-theist". Though his stated reason was that it was for the shock value. By hitting that person with a term that he's not familiar with and for which he does not have pre-conceived notions, it hopefully forces that person to stop and listen. And hopefully to begin to think for once in his life.

Precisely. When delivered verbally, we cannot see any capitalization so we have to rely completely on the words for meaning.Tangle keeps writing "does not believe in god". Not "in a god". Not "in any god". Not "in the gods". Not "in gods". No, he keeps writing "in god". Delivered verbally, he would unambiguously be referring very specifically to a particular god, YHWH. If that is not what he wants to communicate, then he shouldn't persist in leaving out the indefinite article. No, obviously not. And yet I have on multiple occasions encountered Christians who do misuse "atheism" to include theists who believe in other gods. Belief or disbelief in YHWH specifically is their only criterion.Certainly wouldn't be the first time nor only time that Christians didn't know what they are talking about. Nor will it be the last, sad to say.Edited by dwise1, : include

Jeez, how many times? Say what you mean instead of something different! If you mean "in ANY gods" then don't write instead, "in god".Please demonstrate some competence in English!

What the hell are you talking about? That has absolutely nothing to do with my message that you are "replying" to! Why are you trying to change the subject?This is what I actually did write: Please read it this time.Write what you want to say instead of something different from what you want to say. That should be such a simple and obvious concept. I am astonished that you seem to be incapable of understanding it.

Do you want me to go back through this thread and point out to you all the posts you've made where you say specifically, "believe in god"?As Straggler pointed out in Message 165: With that in mind, what you have repeatedly said refers specifically to belief in God, which is to say in one very highly specific god, YHWH. Oh, yes, what you actually mean to say refers to belief in any god, yet your verbiage repeatedly and consistently refers to only one very highly specific god, YHWH. Therefore, the words that you have written express something very different from what you imagine that you actually belief yourself.I have been taking you to task for saying something quite different from what you claim to believe. All we could possibly know about what you actually think is in what you write. If you write something that is completely different from what you actually think, then wouldn't that be a gross error on your part? I have caught you in just such a gross error, and yet you persist in embracing that gross error.Why specify disbelief in YHWH instead of disbelief in any god? That is what you persist in doing. That is what I repeatedly protest. And that is what you absolutely refuse to deal with.What the fuck is your problem?

Here we have atheists of various levels arguing over the proper definitions of what a true atheist, and all the innumerable variations thereof, actually must believe. For this topic, none of that has any meaning.Why do so few known atheists hold public office in the USA? Do any of these arguments that we are currently engaging in have anything to do with that? No, absolutely not. As such, all such arguments are off-topic.Why do so few known atheists hold public office in the USA? Because their constituency will not vote for them. Why not? Oh, yes, why not? For the very reasonable reasons that our members have argued over? No, of course not! Rather, for the reasons that the voters have. Which have not been discussed.So why do people vote against atheists? What are their prejudices? What are the sources of their prejudices? Blind religious ignorance? Specific biblical sources?Really now, why do people not vote for atheist candidates?

Here's some cud to chew on from Ed Babinski's Facebook postings. Mike Huckabee: ‘God’s blessing’ will make me president to stop the atheist ‘secular theocracy’The Christian right wants civilization to collapse

Yes, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that one would be in the process of learning.But then that is not what your theology is about, is it? There is no process. Your theology has been determined in advance. There is no learning process involved. Rather, it is all about conforming to what you have already decided must be absolutely true.

That is nothing but weasel-wording. You create an elaborate theology. So very full of minute details. Details about what God is saying, what God means, what God intends. Oh, isn't it? Must it not be?What would happen if your theology were not correct? Could you even cope with your theology not being correct? Would you even attempt to deal with your theology not being correct? You have more than amply demonstrated that you would oppose the Truth as much as you possibly could.

I have made no mistake at all! You are the one who is incapable of using the English language! You are the one who kept stating what you don't actually believe.What is your problem? Did your mother drop you on your head?

Why were the Jets even tossed into this mess? A street gang that likes to pirouette down the street. Has nothing to do with anything!Now, the really big question is and has always been: Kirk or Picard?Yet again, what we would define an atheist to be is not relevant to this topic. Atheists normally cannot get elected to office because of what the voters think atheists are, not what we really are. What to they think, however mistaken they may be?For one thing, many "true Christians" appear to believe that atheists actually do know that God -- ie, the "true Christian" God -- exists, but they are fighting against Him. Well, that just blows Tangle's extreme either-or definitions completely out of the Holy Water, now doesn't it?