Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

Yeh, well that would be because I don't believe in god, I guess.

Everyone is both! No-one can prove the non-existence of god, it's a logical impossibility. The term agnostic is utterly redundant - it just gives non-believers a less offensive position in society.When people say that they believe or don't believe in god, they're not doing it from any evidenced based, scientific knowledge. That's the only thing Huxley got right.

No. Because I don't accept any scale. As I've said, belief in god is binary. Ho hum. If you have 'sound evidence based scientific knowledge' for the existence of god, there is no requirement to believe anything. You accept it as a fact. Belief only come into play in the *absence* of evidence.Ringo explains it. He does not know Bigfoot exists because he doesn't have the evidence, but he believes it does anyway. When a live Bigfoot is brought to his local zoo, he' should say "I believed in you, but now I don't need to."The bible, get's it right (which it does quite a lot actually.) Although it too muggles belief with knowledge for the sake of a good story.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Which, of course, just resolves to theist.'Do you believe in god?' 'Yes.'You don't actually say 'well I don't actually have rigourous scientific proof, but even so, and pending further information, I believe in god anyway.' I think you're finally getting it. Well it rather does matter doesn't it? You see words have meanings. Knowedge is stuff we can evidence and pass on to others and can be shown to be objectively correct - or at least it is in Huxley and my definition. If it means something else we tend to file it in the same box as belief. If they actually had real, transferrable, non-personal, knowledge we'd all be theists. ref Doubting Thomas. Sure, there are billions that claim to know. Faith is a prime example. But we all 'know' that what they claim to know is totally subjective delusional bollocks - otherwise called belief. The word agnostic was invented in the mid 19th century by an atheist.

You bet your life I am. That's because knowledge and beliefs are different states. Knowledge is held in a box we call objective reality. It has evidence to back it up and concerns itself with rational thought and logical decision making. This is Huxley's entire point. Without knowledge of something - a-gnosis - we can't form a rational opinion.Belief allows us to make decisions without perfect knowledge. A very necessary emotion, without which we'd be incapacitated. Me and Huxley and the dictionary are. If it's not true, it ain't knowledge. People who claim knowledge that is not actually knowledge are called delusional. Those who claim to have knowledge but can't demonstrate it to others objectively are delusional. Except in the special case of the supernatural where we call it faith or belief. Hence our claims of special pleading. Yes there are, billions of them And we can talk of them. That's why I should be called an atheist not an agnostic - I have a positive belief that god does not exist. (If you must call me anything at all). People with no opinion are also atheists because they too do not believe - but this is a passive, default atheism.

As RAZD would say, curiously, it isn't. Because I - like Huxley - seperate objective knowldge from subjective belief, I am allowing for the human condition which deals routinely with both situations.Wereas your position is actually pre-Huxley, just a jumbled mess of mixed up ideas were all are equally valid. Whatever someone thinks or believes becomes knowledge. No.

........double post........Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

I feel that I'm in an Alice in Wonderland world where what is written is not what is read. Like whatever is in your head before you read it, just stays there no matter what is said. I'm not complaining about you and Jon and RAZD disagreeing with me, that's fine - it's this continuous misunderstanding and misrepresentation that's a little bewildering.No matter - bored again now.

Curiously, your patronising language doesn't make me feel much like reading further. But let's see how much of it I can stomach. If, whilst doing the work of a juror, you are unsure, the verdict is notguilty. But the test is to the standard of reasonable doubt. People argue to eternity exactly what that means. But all this is beside the point, all these analogies do not work - the question is unique - hence the claim of special pleading. 'Do you belive in God?' If you can't answer 'yes' to that, then quite obviously you don't. Ditto Ditto - except that not guilty is subject to double jeopardy law which in the UK is reserved for only very serious crimes. So the verdict is not guilty - he's not sure. To condem, the juror must be sure. What's the point of this? Well that's just too bad, Huxley defined its meaning and I and others - including you I believe - have used it throughout this thread. Agnostic is a scientific, evidence based concept. If you and Cat Sci now wish it to mean something different, you need a different word.re. Axe-murderer diagram etc
We're talking about beliefs in god or not - these silly analogies don't cut it. If you'd like to re-work it starting with the question 'do you believe in god? It might be more relevant.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

And so you should, it's gibberish. The person saying it obviously doesn't believe in god. Well, no. Huxley forbids people to form an opinion either way without evidence - which makes using the word 'belief' pointless when referring to god and turns everyone into his imaginary agnostic. Well we can agree on that. You can take it for a fact that is someone says he's an atheist, he doesn't believe in god. Then you'd be a theist.

I think we may finally getting somewhere. In principle I disagree with this - it allows those that actually don't believe to pretend. But I accept that a very great number of people are in this position and what Huxley did was give them a halfway house - the 'don't know' position that is now in normal useage is not what Huxley meant at all but it caught on like wildfire because people needed a way out. Confusion, deflection and distraction is probably a necessary step away from superstition.In practice I think there are active and passive, or default, atheists. Those like me who have taken the extra step and a much, much bigger number of people who no longer buy into the story, but prefer not to think about it or are too busy or it never crosses their minds. But atheists they are nevertheless.

er, I'm an atheist, what do you think that means? Of course I think all those that believe in god(s) are deluded. I'm not insulting anyone, I'm just stating my position. The whole of the Western world has been moving steadily away from belief towards the rational since the enlightenment. It's handy to have a stepping stone midstream.

Jesus H Christ - are you trolling again?By that cack-arsed logic it is impossible to be an atheist - as I've said a thousand times here, no-one can prove the non-existence of God and we all agree. That's logic 101.As I've also said a thousand times, I'm an atheist because, despite that lack of proof/knowledge, I believe that there is no god. Belief and knowledge are different and unrelated. People believe and disbelieve reagrdless of perfect - or even any - knowledge.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Ok, so you're just trolling now. Bye.

There's no such beast as a fundamental atheist. You have completly misunderstood, either deliberately or more likely because of your blessed confirmation bias - which you ironically demonstrate with almost every post - what an atheist is. Speaking for myself, I'm a rationalist and would switch my beliefs in a moment given adequate evidence. Try to understand that atheists can't be fundamental because all they have is a LACK of belief. It's amusing - to use your word - to see you trying to turn that into something more than it is.It's not so amusing having to say over and over, very simple things and have them deliberately twisted to conform to your own beliefs. Try to get your head around this.I KNOW MY BELIEFS ARE NOT VALID. That is my entire point. That's because all beliefs are not valid - scientifically speaking. Your Deism is not valid, Ringo's Bigfootism is not valid. But so what? You, Ringo and I have those beliefs anyway. Try to get your head around that.Stop being so damn patronising and you might get yourself out of the mental rut you're stuck in.