Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

Sure, and they are asked to vote guilty or not guilty. There is no 'don't know' - a don't know is 'not guilty'.If you don't believe god exists, you're an atheist. If you don't know if you believe there's a god, you don't believe in god. You are therefore an atheist.

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.

Well exactly. I've said exactly this over and over in this thread. Belief and knowledge are different states. You are now beginning to see the division. You are agnostic about knowledge but believe anyway.If I now ask you whether you believe Bigfoot exists you will say 'yes' because you have already told us that you believe in Bigfoot. You are therefore absolutely NOT agnostic about Bigfoot's existence.

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.

You bet your life it doesn't. You believe in Bigfoot and yet you're agnostic about Bigfoot.Could it possibly be that you are speaking of two different states? One concerning knowledge (rational) the other concerning belief (irrational.)You believe in Bigfoot, as you say, period.

Are you high?

Obviously not, otherwise I wouldn't have a problem understanding someone who says he believes in Bigfoot but also doesn't believe in Bigfoot.

Except there's no one in this thread saying that.Which I guess makes you high.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Sure, that's one way to use the words. Another way is like this:Theist = takes the positive position that god exists.Atheist = takes the positive position that god does not exist.Agnostic = Everyone else. People who don't take a position either way.There's nothing wrong with using the words that way, and you're wrong to insist that people conform to the usage of the words that you prefer.

I'd agree with Cat Sci on this one. I can be a bit of a traditionalist, when it comes to language and grammar, but I've reconciled myself to the language changing from its strict, etymological roots from time to time.I could, for example, tell you that I had fantastic sex last night. This would not mean that I'd shagged a unicorn.Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.

Obviously. I'm not arguing about how most people use the words. I'm saying that they're fooling themselves. I'm now repeating myself too often....here's one I made earlier

Yes. And what is the other part of that equation? An informed electorate!So why don't USA voters vote for atheists? Idiocy? Blind stupid bigotry? Whatever does any of that have to do with what the Founding Fathers had intended?So why don't those voters vote for atheists? That is the entire reason for this topic. So why does nobody dare address the topic?

Difficult for an outsider to speak on the 'why?' issue, but my limited experience being a naive visitor quite willing to be openly atheist in the USA, I met with something I can only describe as disgust.A totally new experience for me - even the Christian fanatics in the UK aren't visibly affected by meeting atheists - I can only assume that they've got used to us as we're everywhere. They've worked out that we're actually not going to steal their babies and eat them.Are those that call themselves agnostics electable?

Bullshit! I know for a fact that the gods exist! Just as Long John Silver exists. Or Obi-wan Kenobi. Or Spock. Or Quark. Over the millennia, people have created the gods that they need to have in order to deal with the ideas they feel they need to deal with. There is not one single Christian who actually believes in any actual "God", but rather only in their ideas of what "God" is supposed to mean. Yet again, complete and utter bullshit! On both points!First, I have absolutely no objection to you believing whatever you want to believe, even though believing in something totally untrue could prove to be an impediment. I just simply do not believe the same thing.Second, whatever I do believe or do not believe is not any part of my platform. My political platform is my political platform. What my own personal religious beliefs are has absolutely no bearing on my platform. Well then, they are complete and utter idiots, totally divorced from reality. And, as I have already pointed out, the ideal requires an informed electorate. When your electorate is a bunch of ignorant savages, then just how is that supposed to work? What the fuck are you talking about? Why would any sane politician make a lack of belief a part of his platform? That is not even any part of the question here!A politician is campaigning for an office. He/She understands all the issues and has a solid plan that would work. He/She also just happens to be an atheist. Has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with his/her ability to serve in that office. His/Her atheism cannot possibly be any kind of issue about his/her electability ... until his/her opponent learns of it and makes use of it.Now, did our atheist candidate ever even begin to make any kind of issue about being an atheist? No, he/she did not. Is it an issue? No, it is not. But then his/her opponent discovers that he/she is an atheist and publishes that fact. Is it an issue now? Yes, it is. Why? Why? Why? Why? If that had been the campaign, then that politician would deserve to fail. But that is not the campaign. The campaign is completely normal. The candidate just happens to be an atheist. So why must that simple irrelevant fact make him/her unelectable? Yes, that is what I've been trying to say. So your and everybody else's attempts to define that term is meaningless. Completely and utterly meaningless.And, yes, I do say Voters, because when it comes to getting people elected to office, then it is the voters that we are talking about. Duh? So then weasel-word your way according to what your constituency might possibly think? OK, so just what do they think? Just what does anything of what your constituency thinks have anything to do with the mental masturbations of Tangle or of any other self-avowed atheist here? Does what Tangle and anybody else here have any meaning? Or do the voting constituents' ideas have the real meaning for this topic? Why anyone would want to "change the word" has no bearing on this topic. If we just do not believe in god nor care, the what's the big deal? The big deal is that we won't get elected! That is what this entire topic is about! What part of that do you not understand?Fuck football. Wasn't it Stan Tucci who said, "Football is stupid."?

Yes, indeed, why?Is it purely their abysmal ignorance?Is it the constant stream of anti-atheist propaganda they receive from their fundamenalist handlers?Is it something mentioned in the Bible? Such as the flaming we get from II Corinthinians Chap 6?:

quote:

---

6:13 Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto [my] children,) be ye also enlarged.
6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you,
6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

---

Are you truly so ignorant of Scripture? Do you indeed not know these words?:

quote:

---

Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):

​

Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."
(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)

---

Why choose to not know your enemy? Who the fuck knows? Only those who understand something about what the [i]voters think.So why the fuck do you think that I keep asking that question?