Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

If I'm going to spend my time typing this up, I expect a reply back.I understand what you said, I don't disagree with the main point of your post, but I do see some thing that I do disagree with.Let me preface this by saying that if you take the position that gods do not exist, then I have no problem with calling you an atheist. Let's call that strong atheism.Its the people that respond to if they believe in god with: "I'm an atheist!" and then when people go: "What, how do you know there is not a god?" To which they reply: "Oh, I don't claim that god doesn't exist, I just don't have enough evidence to believe that he does." Let's call that weak atheism.Those are the people that I don't want to call atheists. For one, now when someone says that they're an atheist, I don't know what they're talking about: Do they deny god or just fail to believe? i.e. are they strong or weak?Second, I think the word agnosticism, as coined by Huxley, is a better word to describe the weak atheism position.That way, when the response to if they believe in god is: "I'm an agnostic". The people can just go: "Oh, okay, they don't believe in god but don't care to take the position that god does not exist"There's no need to equivocate on the understanding of the word atheism as being strong atheism, and then have to go into an explanation of how you really mean weak atheism, when there's a perfectly good word that you can use instead.Plus, it just seems dishonest. As if you're using the term "atheist" for shock value, but then your too big of a pussy to take it to fruition.If you can't stand strong in your position, and instead have to back down into a non-position, then you should call yourself agnostic, like the fence-sitter that you are. Okay, so what is wrong with the word "agnosticism", as coined by Huxley?:

quote:

---

Doctrine that one cannot know the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of experience. It is popularly equated with religious skepticism, and especially with the rejection of traditional Christian beliefs under the impact of modern scientific thought. T.H. Huxley popularized philosophical agnosticism after coining the term agnostic (as opposed to gnostic) in 1869, to designate one who repudiated traditional Judeo-Christian theism but was not a doctrinaire atheist (see atheism). Agnosticism may mean no more than the suspension of judgment on ultimate questions because of insufficient evidence, or it may constitute a rejection of traditional Christian tenets.

---

Isn't that exactly what weak atheism is? Its even contrasted with "doctrinaire" atheism which is what I'm referring to as strong atheism. So what's the problem?(again, if you are a strong atheist then that's fine, you're an atheist) First off, the apparent special pleading stems from the god-concept being a particular issue that isn't reflected in other entities.Most people do believe in god, so atheism deviates from the default - that's partly why people expect an explanation.Also, most people have believed in god since a young age, so its taken for granted that god exists and that any random person will agree. So again - when you deviate from that people expect an explanation.It'd be like a bunch of 2nd graders discussing Santa Claus and one kid saying he doesn't exist - the others would expect to hear reasons why the kid thinks Santa doesn't exist. Understood, but to make that comparison you have to have specific information about the thing you are denying.If you were just talking about a non-specific "danger" in your house, I doubt you could easily jump into being an a-danger-ist.Of if instead of leprechauns you were just talking about a "small creature", then the same goes.Its only when you have enough information about the concept that we can easily dismiss it that you don't need to add any qualifiers or specifications to you claims of non-existence.Otherwise, people are going to want an explanation for how you got there. Notice that you don't have to specify; axe/Axe/AXE-murderer, as we all know what you are talking about.If you just write 'god', we don't really know - is it the small polytheistic god like Thor, or is the one true almighty god like Allah?. That those qualifiers and specifications are needed to be clearer of what you are talking about is how disbelief in god/God/GOD/whatever looks like special pleading.There's so many different kinds of gods out there, and the ones that individuals actually believe in are mostly personal anyways - so the word god, alone, doesn't really tell us that much at all.From a later message: That's because when you say: "I'm an atheist", people think you mean strong atheistm as opposed to weak atheism.If, instead, you said that you were agnostic then that stuff wouldn't happen to you any more. And this is what I don't understand:Why go against the grain and try to change the commonly used language? Especially if you're just a weak atheist - what's the big deal?Why do people take the weak atheism position and then declare themselves an atheist when their listeners are going to think they are talking about strong atheism?Why don't the weak atheists just throw us all a bone and use the word agnosticism instead?

Because if people think I'm an atheist, then it'll be a lot harder for me to run for office. Earlier you were saying that believe is active and that if you don't know if you believe or not, then you don't. I don't think that's necessarily true, so I'm going to try to explain to you how it could be otherwise.Let's say I offer you 'Concept X', and you don't know what I'm referring to with it. Do you believe in it or not? Well, since you don't know, you say that you don't believe in it. Well, concept X is cheese. Now that you know, did you go from not believing to believing?What did that change feel like? What was the "activity" that you went through to go from non-belief to belief? Was it like a light-switch, or something?Or was it nothing? Like, you believed in cheese the whole time and you just didn't know if you believed in Concept X or not because you didn't know what it was. Just because you don't know what it is doesn't mean that you don't believe in the thing that it is representing - you just don't know yet.Or what about things that people just take for granted and don't think about? There's no "activity" in believing those things, its just the default state. Its more like a passive belief and for those you'd need an active disbelief. That's different that everything being active belief and the default being passive disbelief.

Strong. You're an atheist. You take the position that gods do not exist. Don't you? But you do have justifications for not believing that there is an axe murderer in your house, and leprechauns under your bed, and gods existing.That's why I don't have a problem calling you an atheist.If instead, you were saying that you don't believe that there is not an axe murderer in your house, but rather you just lack that belief that there is one because of insufficient evidence, then I would say that the term agnostic is better used to describe that.Especially if you were a self-proclaimed a-axemurdererinmyhouse-ist but then said that you didn't go so far as to believe that there was not an axe murderer in your house.'Cause that's just silly.

Okay, yeah if you're just going to dig your heels in and insist on your usage while failing to consider the usage that other's prefer, then I'm not going to waste my time anymore. No shit - you're claiming that all belief is active and that passive beliefs cannot exist. And you'd rather stick to your guns than challenge your own thoughts. The non-pedants knew exactly what I was talking about. Again, that's just your preferred usage of the term. Other people prefer to use the words differently. And they're not wrong to do so.

Almost nobody believes in leprechauns and almost everybody believes in god - practically/effectively. At least where I come from.Too, there is not a significant portion of people who don't know if they believe in leprechauns or not, while there is a significant portion of people who do not know if they believe in god or not.So the non-beliefs are not equal. For some people they are, sure, but not in general.So we don't have a use for a word like agnosticism for leprechauns but we do have that use for gods.That's what this is about: Can the words be used that way and does it work out and is it helpful. This is not about the ways that people must use words - that's what I am opposing.Your side is the one claiming that people are wrong to use the words differently than you prefer - and that there really is only one proper usage of these words.I'm trying to explain that another usage is actually more beneficial. It has nothing to do with logic or etymology; this is about how language works and the way that people use words.I think my way is better usage of the words even if it is less logical.It reduces confusion and more clearly explains the positions.As you'd have it, if someone told me they were an atheist I don't know what they believe or don't believe.And the cross axis with gnostic-agnostic is worthless because nobody in their right mind thinks they're gnostic. So there's no place for that usage.Too, dichotomizing atheism-theism doesn't cover all the positions that people do take.So its better to leave atheism for the claim of no god, theism for the claim of god, and then use agnosticism for everyone in between.Then, if you don't want to go so far as to claim that there is no god, then don't call yourself an atheist, just use agnostic instead.That way, when people do say they are atheist, we'll know exactly what they're talking about and there's no back and forth on: "well, I don't claim that god doesn't exist I just don't have enough evidence to say it does so therefore, technically, I do count as an atheist". That's just stupid.My way just works better and you should adopt it.

Because it works better, reduces confusion, and adds clarity. No, I get your point. You're just being a logic-cop.I'm saying that the difference between belief and knowledge is immaterial when there's better ways to use the words that logically imply those things.If you drop the logical implications and use the words in a different way then everything works out better.The best way to divide the camps is:Believes that there is a god = theismBelieves that there is no god = atheismDoesn't believe either way = agnosticismThat covers all the bases and avoids confusion.Just because you think that your usage is the most logical one doesn't mean that you usage is the best usage of the words.Sometimes words are used better if we do break the logical implications. This is one of those cases.ABE: Well, are you willing to make the claim that gods do not exist?If so, then you should be called an atheist.If not, then you should be called an agnostic instead.Edited by Cat Sci, : see abe

That's lame. Language is cool because we get to use words in incorrect and illogical ways.You can broaden your communication, and clarify complex concepts, by twisting the way that words are used. Well that's wrong. He expounded the important differences between knowledge and belief.He showed that you can be philosophically skeptical without being anti-god. And fall short of making the claim that it doesn't.Pussy Pedantry.I believe that 2+2=4 and I know that the sun is going to rise tomorrow.That makes sense. It's no biggie, really.

The etymology of the positive position goes back to the greeks... so maybe you should just be calling that normal pleading Right, count me in.There is no axe murderer in my house and there won't be one there when I get home.I have no problem claiming that. Well now it sounds like you're special pleading.What's wrong with it being a positive position? Do you not, in fact, hold the positive position that there are not any leprechauns in your garden?If not, why not?Anyways, there are plenty of people running around claiming that they know that god does not, in fact, exist. So it does make sense to have a word for those people.And there are other people who don't go that far, but instead only withhold belief because of insufficient evidence. That is a different position than real atheists and it makes sense to have a different word for them that distinguishes them from the real atheists. Don't trigger me! what is the privilege here, exactly? Being in the majority and using words like most people do? I don't treat non-belief as a positive position unless it is one. That's part of my problem with calling weak-atheists atheists. The term atheist implies that you are taking the positive position that god does not exist. Weak-atheism falls short of taking the positive position, which is why I don't consider it real atheism. If you're not willing to take it that far and make the claim, then you shouldn't call yourself an atheist.If you can make the claim, then you can take the positive position. Leprechauns don't exist.And if you can't, then you shouldn't call yourself an atheist. You should call yourself an agnostic.I don't know if bigfoot exists or not, but I'm not going to claim that it doesn't.I'm an atheist towards leprechauns but I'm agnostic towards bigfoot. Its two different positions.There's no benefit to me calling both of those positions the same thing. They're not.

quote:

---

I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine.

---

quote:

---

I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school.

---

quote:

---

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last.

---

Nope:

quote:

---

The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis"—had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

---

What he explained was that you not believing does not mean that you believe not.That is, not believing in god's existence is not the same as believing in god's nonexistence.There's room in the middle - room that you're unwilling to account for. You don't have to know it to claim it, nor to take the positive position.There is no axe murderer in my house. (I don't actually know that) An atheist would claim that god does not exist. You will not. Being accurate is less important than communicating effectively.I'd love to see you in East St. Louis correcting all the Ebonics

Honestly, I probably wouldn't. I try not to make a habit of proving negatives, especially against people who seem indignant.But if I did respond, I'd just tell them all the reasons that I know that leprechauns aren't real.Like how they're mythological creatures from old Irish folklore.

An atheist should be someone who says that there is no god.There's plenty of people out there saying that they know for a fact that god does not exist. Those people are atheists. Even if you like to play the semantic game and talk about how we really can't "know" anything, if you're willing to claim that god does not exist, then you're an atheist.If you simply lack a belief in god, because of insufficient evidence, but do not claim that there is not a god, then you shouldn't be called an atheist; you should be called agnostic.

Cool, you're an atheist.As I've been saying, I only have a problem with the people who go: "I simply lack a belief in god but I don't believe that god does not exist."Agnosticism, as coined by Huxley, is a better term to use to describe those people than atheism is. That's why the technical definition of 'agnostic' is worthless and should be dropped. There's a better way to use the word.As you'd have it, everyone is agnostic and that word tells us nothing.Then if someone says they're an atheist, I don't know if they think there is no god, or if they simply lack a belief that there is but don't believe that there isn't.So that usage doesn't work well either. The semantics part is how we use the words atheism and agnosticism.You'd rather them be held to only their technical meaning while I'm saying that we can use those words in a better way - that is more informative and less confusing. I don't agree with that. You can maybe-believe or kinda-believe... Of course it isn't, I understand what you are saying. I just disagree with your usage of the terminology.

I can't imagine why I should care...But we do know that all leprechauns are fictional - we can trace them back to a single culture's mythology. Leprechauns are something that we have plenty of information to determine that they're fictional. Dude, its leprechauns... this is ridiculous. I don't care what he thinks about them.

Those aren't leprechauns... "That's neat. Have a nice day, Sam." No, as I said: We know that leprechauns are fictional. Not can't but don't. I don't understand why you care. I couldn't care less about leprechauns and I wouldn't waste my time discussing them.

No I don't. Agnosticism works just fine in describing someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in gods.To demand that its usage be limited to knowledge claims is just semantics.