Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

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.

Theres's no fooling you is there?! That's why they are two different words to describe two different things. I am agnostic about knowledge of god. Tick. Said it dozens of times in this thread. I am not agnostic about belief in god. This, by the simple meaning of words, does not make me agnostic about belief in god. Just as believers in god are not agnostic about their belief but they should be about knowledge. Says who? You and Huxley? I think you'll find that people in general will laugh in your face if you call their beliefs irrelevant - or arbitrary. You're talking like Spock as though the only thing that matters for decision making is the scientific method. My disbelief in god is neither irrelevant nor arbitrary, nor non-scientific. It's a result of examining evidence, finding it lacking, accepting that a black swan may at some point turn up, but deciding that last missing piece of knowledge is not strong enough to prevent me believing that it won't. The example was to prove that atheists exist, not gods. It's that reality that you have to confront RAZD. Do you accept ringo's assertion that he lacks the evidence for Bigfoot but believes it exists anyway? That's a reality. You can't just think it away. People have beliefs that are built on both knowledge and emotion. Get over it. Curiously, it does. We have imperfect knowledge, so we routinely take actions that pedantically have to be called irrational. I don't know that there isn't an axe murderer waiting for me in my home. But you know what? I believe that there isn't so I'm going in anyway. If we wait for perfect knowledge before action, we're incapacitated. Those that believed the world wasn't flat and sailed off to prove it were irrational according to the knowledge of the day. The first type are called people. The second we call machines.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Which would make you an a-axemurdererinmyhouse-ist as opposed to an axemurdererinmyhouse-ist. Where an axemurdererinmyhouse-ist is someone who does indeed believe that there is an axe murderer waiting for them in their home and the 'a' prefix denotes those that do not believe this, such as yourself.Without any basis for believing that there is an axe murderer waiting for them those who do believe this (i.e. the axemurdererinmyhouse-ists) are paranoid delusionists and those that don't (i.e. the a-axemurdererinmyhouse-ists) are just people going about their everyday lives unconcerned by such irrational nonsense.Now swap in the terms 'theist' and 'atheist' into the appropriate places and voila, all should become clear to those still struggling here.

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?

Precisely, just like there is no word (until now, when some lunatic just made it up) for a disbelief in an axe murderer waiting behind a door, there should be no word for someone who doesn't believe in the superstitious nonsense spoken about God, (Gods, god, gods - fuck, I'm bored with this pedantry).Then we pose a lessor risk of another loony coming along a couple of thousand years from now with an "I don't know" position just to hide his disbelief in axe murderers.Hence the accusation of special pleading for religious "knowledge" over knowledge of fairies. And axe murderers.

You're the one who's confusing knowledge with belief when you claim there's no such thing as an agnostic. Do they?

Neither Huxley nor anybody else has the power to "allow" any such thing. You may believe that I'll agree, but you don't know whether I will or not. You're agnostic, whether you believe it or not.

At most the 'special pleading' is for devoted terminology.But that is more a reflection of the need for such terminology vis--vis the frequency with which people discuss (and the importance they place on the topic of) god, God, GOD, gods, Gods, and GODs vs. the frequency with which they discuss (and the importance they place on the topic of) axe murderers, fairies, etc.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Oh, no I'm not. Have I walked into a bloody pantomine?People are agnostic about knowledge, but not about belief. You are agnostic about the existence of Bigfoot, but you are certain of your belief in Bigfoot. (Apparently) Yes, quite often, just like you and Bigfoot. (Apparently). But when they don't know whether they believe in Bigfoot or not, then they don't believe in Bigfoot.You see belief is a positive, it either exists or it doesn't. Fun this ain't it?

If people ARE agnostic about knowledge, you can't say there's no such thing as an agnostic. That's all people are trying to tell you.Being agnostic "about belief" is a nonsensical concept. Nobody is arguing that.

I'm fully aware of what people are saying - it's hardly novel or difficult. But this is my entire point, which has gone flying over your - and others - heads. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. You can be agnostic about knowledge - in fact you MUST be, but not belief. Exactly my point. Well done. You can't be agnostic about a belief. Shazham! But be careful, that makes Huxley an atheist. (Which in my view he was.) I'm pretty sure they are - we're a few hundred posts into it. I would have noticed....

You're arguing against a point that nobody is making.

I agree with you that the subjective importance people place on God is the basis for the special pleading in question.But special pleading it remains.Anyone who lacks the belief that there is an axe murderer waiting for them at home is an a-axemurdererinmyhouse-ist in exactly the same way that anyone who lacks a positive belief in any gods can accurately be described as an atheist.If one talks logically with all special pleading absented.