Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

I think you have rather proved the point being made.

How does one acquire knowledge? Does simply believing something with enough conviction transform belief into knowledge? If not then there must be a difference between actually knowing and believing to know.You really need to consider how knowledge is acquired and then ask yourself whether Faith's knowledge that she has found God meets that criteria. I would suggest that it doesn't. I would suggest that with a little thought it is clear that she is conflating strength of belief, conviction, with knowledge.

It seems that even a "juvenile understanding" would be a step up for you....

Our leprechaun-ist (let’s call him Sam) rolls his eyes and tells you that you are being a typically closed minded a-leprechaun-ist. Sam again points out that the evidence you cite showing that some leprechauns are fictional logically fails to support your position that no leprechauns can exist. Absolutely wrong. Duende, sprites, goblins, elves, fairies, gremlins, nisse, lutin, brownie, kobold etc. etc. etc. In fact there is barely any culture that does not have some equivalent.Furthermore lots of people have had subjective experiences involving magical events and, if we view leprechauns and their other cultural equivalents through the prism of the blind men and the elephant story, these can clearly be viewed as positive evidence in favour of Sam's beliefs. Sam makes it clear that he most definitely is not talking about the obviously fictional strawman examples that a-leprechaun-ists tirelessly cite. You seem to view leprechauns very much as I view gods. Whilst Sam views small magical beings very much as you seem to view gods.Anyway - Sam delightedly takes your inabilty to provide further justification as to why your a-leprechaun-ist positive position is any more valid than his own pro-leprechaun positive position as a clear sign that his argument regarding the two positive positions being neither more valid than the other is entirely sound. From this point on he will ceaselessly assert that any denial of this equality is a sure sign of a-leprechaun-ist fundamentalism on your part. So both you and Sam hold positive positions (according to you). Both you and Sam claim to have positive evidence supporting your position. But you can’t conclusively show that no leprechauns exist and Sam cannot conclusively show that any leprechauns do exist.When he says that both a-leprechaun-ism and leprechaun-ism are both positive positions neither one any more conclusively proved than the other — Is he correct?

It's amusing that you are being annoyed by these arguments because they are the very arguments I have learned from you. The only difference being that you apply them to gods and I am applying them to leprechauns.Welcome to my world..... As far as Sam is concerned they are all manifestations of the true but unknowable nature of the real leprechauns he believes in.....Remember the blind men and the elephant story? Sam is utterly delighted in your ongoing use of the 'IF some THEN all' logical fallacy and, to much cheering from leprechauni-ists, he again accuses you of being an a-leprechaun-ist fundamentalist who is completely unable to support his 'positive position'.He draws lots more impressively colorful diagrams and accuses you repeatedly of suffering from cognitive dissonance. Well that's what I'm talking about!!!And thus the special pleading that theists insist upon, and which the language commonly used embraces, continues....Imagine if you lived in a world full of Sams where leprechauns were given the same status that gods are and being a leprechaun-ist or an a-leprechaun-ist was a topic of social relevance......

Whatever you think of Tangle's position one thing you cannot accuse him of is an inconsistent approach to belief depending on the subject. His argument applies to all belief whether it be in Bigfoot, leprechauns, chairs or rotary Wankel engines. His position is that one either believes or one is a non-believer. So he is only a fundamentalist atheist to the same extent he is a fundamentalist a-leprechaun-ist, a fundamentalist a-unicorn-ist, a fundamentalist chair-ist (I am assuming he does believe in the existence of chairs) and so on and so forth entirely independent of subject.If you want to argue that this is a fundamentalist approach to belief period - then I guess you can try and make that argument. But it's not really fundamentalist atheism because the fact that the argument is being applied to gods is really rather irrelevant to the definitions he is applying.

Which just goes to show that you have entirely missed the point about the nature of belief being made. You don't have to agree with it. But it would be nice if you took off your blinkers and at least considered the fact that an argument about the nature of belief is a position unrestricted to your own pet preferences and hang ups about the things you happen to believe in. It's special pleading rearing its goofy toothed animated little head again.....

Like I said to Cat Sci - In everyday life I happily use the term 'atheist' in exactly the way he espouses and in exactly the way he describes as "common usage".
But I can also grasp Tangle's point (and it is a point that dates back centuries, so it is hardly new or radical) about the wider nature of belief and the language used to describe it. Belief as applied to ANYTHING at all. From Aardvarks to Zeus. A generic point about belief that you apparently cannot separate from the specific subject of gods regardless how many times it is patiently explained to you.The very fact that a generic position taken on belief, belief as applied to any subject at all, results specifically in the term fundamentalist atheist being bandied around really just proves the point being made about the intrinsic special pleading inherent in the language commonly used to discuss such matters.So well done for being such a fine example of the linguistic point being made..

We could go through this again. The "I don't know what you are asking me about" position is covered by ignosticism, which was amply demonstrated in that legendary thread where you expressed your agnosticism towards the existence of cheese....Apply here for links to that.Like - I said you can agree or disagree with Tangle's definitions. But if his 'belief as binary' based argument makes him a "fundamentailist" then he is as much an a-leprechaun-ist or a-unicron-ist or a-jabberwocky-ist fundamentalist as he is an "atheist fundamentalist".But the fact his generic-non-subject-dependent position on belief leads people to fixate on that argument as applied to gods, and specifically leads to being labelled as an "atheist fundamentalist", really really does rather prove the linguistic point being made.

Well. Message 164As applied to a generic position on belief that is non-god specific? A fundamentalist what? A fundamentalist beliefist?Tangle — Belief, as applied to anything, is binary.Various others — Aha you are an atheist fundamentalist!!Straggler — But he was talking about belief in anything, not just gods. Your response exemplifies the special pleading afforded to theism.Various others — Aha you are also a fundamentalist atheist!!Straggler — (***shrugs***) — Point made.

A lot of the theistic examples put forward by theists here at EvC I have expressed ignosticism towards.Are you suggesting that this makes me a non-atheist? A non-atheist who is also apparently a fundamentalist atheist.The absurdities of this must surely be clear to you? Well this is easily refuted if we can find a single topic on which Tangle fails to be "fundamentalist" about.You seem to have taken a semantic disagreement and turned it into a rather meaningless but full blown attempt at character assassination.....Personally I don't see how being "fundamantalist" in a general sense can possibly mean anything. If one is a fandamentalist one must be a fundamentalist something.No doubt you will now accuse me of being a fundamentalist with regard to fundamentalism.....

Again the fixation with gods. If there is fanaticism going on here it isn't from Tangle or I. What is wrong with arguing about generic belief?Being unfamiliar with a concept does mean that you cannot answer 'Yes' to the question of whether you believe in it and is thus a form of non-belief.In the future someone may invent an amazing gizmo called a wodget that becomes common parlance but until someone can adequately convey what a wodget is my answer to the question of whether I believe in the existence of wodgets is strictly 'No'. I might well add some caveats about not knowing what a wodget is. I will change my answer when a definition of wodget is forthcoming and I can see that they are everywhere. But until then I am an a-wodget-ist. It really is very simple. He is being a logic cop. To the same extent you are being a common-usage cop. Neither one of you is conceding an inch here so accusations of fundamentalism are rather silly as they could apply to either side on the basis of pure stubbornness.But theists like calling atheists "fundamentalists" and so here we are.

And that is the problem with that usage. Say you are an atheist in the company of those who define the term as such and you are perennially faced with people saying idiotic things along the lines of "oh yeah, go on and prove that God doesn't exist" or "You think you absolutely know that God doesn't exist so you are a fundamentalist" or "you can't know for certain so it's just an assertion of your baseless opinion" and so on and so forth.But nobody ever has to declare themself an a-unicorn-ist and face the same idiocy even if their approach to gods and unicorns and leprechauns and jabberwockys etc. etc. etc. is exactly the same. Prove to me leprechauns don't exist. Oh you can't? Oh you instead cite the evidence that they are human mythological constructs? Oh the irony......The term "atheist" as commonly used is a loaded term in many ways. It embraces the special pleading afforded to theism. That can be fine for shorthand everyday communication on these matters. But if one is attempting to make the point, as Tangle is here, that theism should not be special pleaded in this way then embracing terminology in which the special pleading is inherent makes the task somewhat difficult. Just relentlessly saying "it's common usage" just misses the entire point.Surely you can see why someone who no more considers their lack of belief in gods as any more a provable or an "assertion" (with all the connotations that has) than their lack of belief in unicorns is going to resist that definition....No?

The entire world and its history is shaped by belief in gods in a way that it isn't by unicorns or leprechauns. People want to indoctrinate children, kill each other, stop scientific research and make laws on the basis of religious conviction. The British queen is the head of the church if England. The U.S. president could never declare himself an atheist. Every ceremony and holiday has religious roots.To genuinely treat gods as I would leprechauns in such a context isn't remotely realistic and would require cultural ignorance on a disabling scale. I will probably never read a treatise on the existence of Leprechauns but I would be deemed an ill educated ignoramus if I said I knew nothing of the Bible or what it pertains to. Even Dawkins says he is an Anglican atheist....So in a lot of everyday contexts there is a role for special pleading theistic beliefs for social and historical reasons. The problem comes when that same special pleading that is all but socially inevitable gets applied to logical and evidential arguments about what exists and what doesn't. Using the terminology that embraces the special pleading is socially useful but philosophically......irksome.

Dude - Despite the silly accusations of "fundamentalism" I am being about as un-dogamtic about this as it is possible to be. I have already told you that in general everyday use I essentially use the definition that you are advocating. Isn't that enough for you?But in this thread I am trying to explain to those who seem baffled as to why anyone would not just blindly accept that definition as the final word, why that might be.The assumption among theists in this thread seems to be that Tangle's aim is simply to class as many people as possible as "atheists" because it will give him a warm happy glow to (by your definition) mis-classify as many as people as possible into the same grouping as himself. Or something along those lines.I am simply pointing out that this isn't true and that there is instead a reasoned case to be made for defining things as he is. I don't expect you or RAZ or anyone theistically minded to adopt that usage. You guys are far too dogamatic for that.......But the point remains - Terminology as commonly used reflects the social prevalence of theistic belief. It effectively special pleads theistic belief. Someone who is objecting to that special status may well very validly object to using terminology in which the special status they are objecting to is inherent. And in a discussion about atheism there is a case for using language that is more generic rather than that which embraces the special pleading that is (almost unconsciously for the most part) widespread in society.It's not that difficult.