Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

1) While this is probably true for most if not all atheists, it is not the essential definition of atheist. It is a belief.2) This is closer to the essential definition of atheist, but I think the "or do not exist" is superfluous.3) Agree. Now add a "not" between the "does" and the "believe" and you have the essential definition of atheist. A non-belief. Numbers 1, 2 and 3 added by me. I absolutely agree with 1 and 2. They are the essential definitions of theist and atheist.3 is fuzzy, and I offhand don't know what to say.RAZD has been using two different usages of the term agnostic (although he seems to be in denial about it):1) The Huxley/Wikipedia definition, which I consider the true definition. "God is unknown and unknowable". To state that more clearly and precisely, "To science God is unknown and unknowable". Which, per the definitions of science and God, is absolutely true. God is supernatural and science only deals with the natural. For science to "know" God is for science to drag God from the supernatural into the natural. Which is to redefine what God is. The old supernatural God remains "unknown and unknowable".2) The dominant RAZD usage - Agnosticism is that a person can be in a situation of confusion, where he does not know if he believed in any god(s) or not. He is unable to determine his state of mind. This is the most common usage of agnosticism, a useful but in my opinion technically incorrect.Now I do agree that "a person can be in a situation of confusion, where he does not know if he believes in any god(s) or not." BUT I find that to be an understandable but irrational position. And I think that the Moose/Tangle position all along, even if not explicitly stated, is the the #2 variety of agnosticism is NOT a valid RATIONAL alternative to theist or atheist.In an irrational state, a person might actually go so far as to believe there is a god AND believe there is no god, and maybe ever believe he is a god. But that is NOT a RATIONAL position.So, the whole RAZD vs Moose/Tangle thing comes down to irrational vs rational.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Change a past tense into a present tense.

It's debatable that this calls for a separate message, but I think so.I have yet again reviewed the two messages (273 & 276) that I had responded to, and now have a greater understanding of what you were saying.No reply needed.Moose

Skepticism comes in degrees, but for the highly skeptical "I see no compelling reason to believe in god/s" person, atheism is the greater probability. Now that "compelling reason" could be a science based physical evidence thing, or a religion/faith/belief thing. Fortunately, "lack of compelling reason" in ether sense leads to atheism. That would seem to make him a non-atheist, or a non-non-theist, or (I love this one) an aatheist. Which makes me think "a theist with a drinking problem."Pardon me, I had to get that joke in.Now, you are saying that someone asks himself "Do I find a compelling reason to not believe in God?"? Answer to self: "I do not find a compelling reason to not believe in God. That must make me a theist". Thinks a bit more: "Wait a minute!!! "The question should be, do I find a compelling reason to believe in God? Now, if I say "yes", that makes me a theist and also gives me a compelling reason to disbelieve in God.Believing in something because you can't come up with a reason TO NOT believe in it is not a rational thought process.Not believing in something because you can't come up with a reason TO believe in it is not a rational thought process. Added by edit - For the two sentences immediately above, I did a copy of the first, to paste and modify to be the second. In doing such I neglected to remove one "not". The second sentence was intended to be "Not believing in something because you can't come up with a reason TO believe in it is a rational thought process". - End of added by edit.Your second question does not make rational sense, although I guess it does make irrational sense. You're an atheist. No compelling reason to believe is "not theist" = "atheist". One does not need a compelling reason to disbelieve. To go from "theist" to "atheist" only requires a lack of a compelling reason to believe.Believes in God - Theist.Does not believe in God - Atheist.Does not know if he believes in God (does not know that he is a believer) - Not a (rational) theist, that means atheist.Does not know if he disbelieves in God - Irrelevant.Has all kinds of problems knowing what he believes in - Crazy person.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Typo fix ("also" to "all")Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit in red.