Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

Are these questions aimed at me?

For sure, but if you're running for an office and you keep bringing up the fact that your an atheist, I don't think its wrong for the voters to think that it is an important influence on your politics. You should probably have an informed electee as well. And if your terminology grossly differs from your electorates, then you should probably inform yourself about how they talk. You shouldn't come to St. Louis asking us about our favorite pop to drink, and you shouldn't go up north and ask them what kind of soda they like.While you may technically be correct that they are the same thing, its still not going to work out well for you. I dunno, find an ignorant savage for them to vote for? I kid.I mean, if you're so much smarter and better than your electorate, are you really representing them?And why would an intelligent civilized person want to represent a bunch of ignorant savages? That is what I was talking about. It was just side-point that having a soft-atheist make a big deal out of the terminology is kind of an oxymoron - it shouldn't be important at all.So, just call yourself an agnostic to save the trouble of explaining what you mean by being an atheist.And that is another problem I have with the terminology Tangle prefers... If you tell me that you are an atheist I am left wondering if you go so far as to believe that god does not exist, or are you just one of those people who has not seen enough evidence to go as far as saying that god does exist? Because they're dicks. They were butt-hurt and they went for the only thing they could find. Totally reprehensible. Um, the guy in the OP won the election...

quote:

---

In 2008, Bothwell ran unsuccessfully for the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners, and ran for the Asheville, North Carolina city council in 2009, winning the most votes in the October 6 primary election.

---

I thought this was fairly interesting:

quote:

---

Bothwell was raised as a Presbyterian, became a non-theist by the age of 20, and is a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church.[8] He later stated that he believed the question of the existence of a deity was irrelevant to governance and that he believed in the Golden Rule.[11] He has also described himself as a "post theist."

---

quote:

---

Religion: A post-theist or agnostic member of the Unitarian Universalist Church

---

So this guy doesn't even call himself an atheist... and he belongs to a church.Too, he uses the terminology that I prefer to use. I was agreeing with you Wait, isn't that exactly what politics is?Seriously. A politician might have to weasel his way into getting votes? Gosh, the horror Unfortunately, when it comes to politics, you're going to have to conform to what the voters want. If you consider yourself an atheist but want to get elected, you'd be better off describing yourself as an agnostic if you want to win.And as you say, since its not a big deal what the terminology is, then why try to change the word?You said my questions were irrelevant, but I think they get more to the heart of the problem. If the voters better understood why you people want to "change that word", or whatever, then maybe they're wouldn't be as much backlash.If all you can do is complain that you really are right and everyone else is wrong, well then: You reap what you sow.

Well I think that you are the one who is fooling yourself.So now what? Again, that is just you insisting that people conform to the usage of the words that you prefer.It doesn't work like that, that's not going to convince anyone.

The guy in the OP that you mentioned doesn't call himself an atheist, but rather calls himself an agnostic, and he got elected.

Yes, all those things. Yeah, maybe we should go back to just property owners having the right to vote... that should clear this mess up

Whom was I addressing?

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.

Well ok, they seem rather rhetorical... Yes, with some exceptions I'm mostly ignorant of scripture. I do not read the bible terribly often - for rather obvious reasons. Although I can quote mine like the best of them if necessary. Because theists are not my enemy. I usually find them decent enough people. At worst annoying. Can see why I thought it was rhetorical?

Only from the very beginning and for the next 100 posts. Ad nauseum. Correct, the first is a theist, the second an atheist. Note that you can only believe or not believe. There's no other state for belief. The 'don't know' state of knowledge is common to both, and irrelevant.

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

If you don't know what to believe - as, in say Bigfoot - you can not believe in Bigfoot. Yes, I remember juries and I remember reminding you that there is no "I don't know" category for a juror. Their choices are guilty or not guilty.

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.

I believe in God. A dude walks up to me and goes: "Aye yo, do ya believe in gawd?"Without knowing what kind of god he is referring to, nor whether or not my concept of god fits within what he is talking about, I can be in a state of not knowing whether or not I believe in the god he is talking about, despite the fact that I do believe in a god.The fact that I do not know if I believe in the god he is talking about does not default me into a state of not believing in that god, for the god he is thinking of could fit with the god that I do believe in. I simply don't know that at the point of questioning - So I might go: "I dunno, whadaya mean?"That would be me not knowing if I believe in what he is talking about or not. That is not necessarily me being in a state of not believing in what he is talking about - because once I learn what he is talking about, it might be something that I believed in all along.

Here we learn that Tangle is an atheist who thinks that words have a God given meaning.