Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

Having heard of gods is not the same as "knowing they exist". I've heard of Zeus, Thor, etc. but I don't "know they exist". I know that the idea of Zeus and Thor exists but that has nothing to do with my belief in them.

If you've never heard of it and/or you don't know what it is, you have to be agnostic about it.

I don't think it is, as I've already pointed out. Juries deliberate because they don't know what to believe.

They are required to make up their minds what and whom to believe. "Facts" in a legal context are not "knowledge" the same as they are in a scientific context. Juries are required to come to a consensus on what they believe "the facts" are. Because I don't know whether Bigfoot exists, I am agnostic. Whether I believe anything on the subject is irrelevant to my agnosticism on the subject.

Yes. Belief is irrational.When there is no rational answer, when we don't know, when we don't have the facts, we believe.I don't know whether Bigfoot exists. I am agnostic about the existence of Bigfoot. That's why I have to fall back on belief. I only have a belief because I'm agnostic.

It's always "don't know". The jury is asked what it believes, not what it knows. If anybody knew, there wouldn't be any need for juries. Whether you believe in gods or not, you're an agnostic. You don't know, even if you believe you do.

That doesn't make any sense at all. If I don't know whether Bigfoot exists, I am agnostic. That's what the word means. My belief, one way or the other, is completely irrelevant to my knowledge. It's my lack of knowledge that makes me agnostic, period.

I thought you already acknowledged that knowledge and belief are two different states.Since they are two different states, there is no problem whatsoever for me to not know and yet believe. Or I could not know and not believe.

That's probably a big part of it. It also works on black people and women. I'm not comfortable with all of the concern about what the Founding Fathers intended. To a large extent the Founding Fathers were blind stupid bigots.

That isn't true, as I've already pointed out. There's also, "I don't know what to believe." Remember juries?

Sometimes you have to make a choice, like when you're on a jury or in a restaurant. You don't know that the shrimp will be better than the chicken but you have to choose one. You choose what to believe. And you were wrong. There's "I don't know but I'll go along with the majority." You don't know. You might believe or you might not believe.

They have to believe beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no reasonable doubt about what you know. There is no reasonable doubt that 1 plus 1 equals 2. Exactly. The possibility of not guilty is there for two reasons: either the jury is reasonably sure that he is not guilty or they are not reasonably sure that he is guilty. In either case, they don't know.

No. It doesn't work that way. A jury is required to come up with a verdict and the default is not guilty (or the case is thrown out).In personal beliefs there is no default. Don't know is the largest category. It's only an arrogant minority that claims to know, one way or the other.

You're the one who's conflating knowledge with belief. A jury doesn't know. They believe. So you're an agnostic. Get used to it.

Watch your own lips: You claim to understand that knowledge and belief are two different things, so why do you ask for an explanation that conflates them into one?You do not believe in god, gods, God, Gods BUT you do not know whether they exist or not. Your belief or lack of belief is irrelevant. Are you hoping that belief and knowledge will magically become the same and different at the same time?