Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

Firstly — I am afraid that insisting your own definition be applied and agreeing that there is no context in which you won't object and resist an alternative definition being applied are one and the same thing to all practical intents and purposes. You are making a distinction without a difference re terminological stubbornness.Secondly - Our old friend Sam made all the same arguments about generic leprechauns as you are doing about generic gods. Message 443
You responded simply by asserting that pixies, nisse, lutin, tomte, dwende and all the other multi-cultural equivalents to leprechauns didn’t qualify.
So now I must ask you on what basis does this generic concept you talk of, qualify as a god? Generic or otherwise. What properties does this thing have such that it is a god and thus your belief in it qualifies you as a theist?Thirdl — It seems blindingly obvious to me that those who understand that defining a concept will make it more susceptible to refutation will seek to ambiguify the concepts that pertain to their particular cherished beliefs. Thus this idea that generic gods are somehow more believable seems pointlessly and obviously counter-acted by the obvious fact that generic gods are the inevitable result of that very human inclination. They are the inevitable retreat end-point of theistic belief if better defined concepts can be, and arguably have been, discredited.Finally — You seem to have completely ignored the generic evidence that pertains to the made-up-ness of generic gods. Namely the evidence that humans are inclined to invent such concepts in general rather than the specific reasons that specific entities are invented (which you seem to largely accept). A Skeptic's take on souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens and other invisible powers that beEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You aren't accepting an alternative definition if you are objecting to its use.Look up the term duende on wiki re the genericness of leprechaun concepts to which Sam is suggesting you should apply the blind man and the elephant approach (as you say should be done to gods)If you honestly have no idea about the properties this thing you believe in has how do you know it is a "god"? Why does your belief in this thing make you a theist rather than a something-ist?Wouldn't it be fucking ironic if you had spent an entire thread admonishing someone for applying a definition of "atheist" that is not the most common one whilst simultaneously basing your own theistic defence on your own personal definition (or denial of any definition at all) of the term "god".....

Neither you nor anyone else are in any position to permit other people from using whatever terminology they want. What the hell are you going to do if they refuse to adhere to your preferred definition? Admonish them? So permit is a rather stupid qualification. But saying you accept an alternative definition whilst simultaneously objecting to it’s use in all practical instances is no different in any practical sense from insisting that your preferred definition is used. You are splitting hairs in order to sound reasonable whilst actually being entirely stubborn.If you want to see what genuine acceptance of the different uses of terminology looks like you could do worse than look at AZPaul’s posts in this thread.Anyway — None of that semantic waffle is half as interesting as this notion of genericising we are slowly moving onto. For the record — The things humans invent are invariably based on something. Myths don’t spring forth from imagination alone. Nobody is claiming that. But what people do undeniably do is extrapolate and mystify their experiences. It's not so much pure invention as embellishment, misinterpretation and wishful thinking over-laden on top of relatively mundane observations and perceptions. E.g. A bear sighting gets reported as an encounter with the abominable snowman. That sort of thing. That is Sam’s approach and he unashamedly describes himself as a leprechaun-ist. Personally I would suggest that a something-ist might be more appropriate Well is it? That is the question here isn’t it? If the thing in question becomes so generic and so undefined and so ambiguous that it fails to comply with any common definition of god, or leprechaun for that matter, then can belief in that something really qualify one as a leprechaun-ist or a theist? What definition of god are you applying and how does the concept you believe in comply with that definition such that it can claim to be accurately described by that definition?If the concept you have in mind doesn’t match any common definition of god then it’s difficult to see how you are a theist by any common definition either.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This:

quote:

---

I don't reject the Easter Bunny just because it is unevidenced. I reject it because of all the evidence that we have that shows that it is not real.

​

Not all gods are in that exact same category - where we have a bunch of evidence showing that they are not real.

---

My point being that you seem very selective in your acceptance of evidence in favour of human invention as pertaining to whether things are real or not.

Such as?At the moment I can't see how anything other than ignosticism can be applied, because so far there is no concept to consider and any expression of belief or disbelief, from either of us, in such a non-concept is incoherent, non-cognitive and entirely meaningless.At the moment you might as well express your belief in the existence of something and classify yourself as a something-ist. Here is the problem I do have. You have spent an entire thread protesting against a use of the term "atheist" that doesn't adhere to common usage. Apparently in the name of clarity. Yet when it comes to describing yourself as a "theist" common usage and clarity go out the window and you apparently qualify by your belief in something which is only a "god" by virtue of your own private definitions.The hypocrisy burns!!!

In terms of common usage and clarity - The things you have insisted upon with regards to defining the term "atheist" - This is a an incredibly weak and hypocritical position.It amounts to saying that you define yourself as a "theist" because you believe in something that you personally define as a "god". And that everyone else should just accept those definitions. Then tell us about this "god in general".What properties does it possess?
What qualities does it have such that it qualifies as a "god"?
What does one have to believe in to qualify as a "theist"?If you the object of your belief does not meet those criteria on what basis are you are "theist"?You wanted common usage and clarity to be the overriding factors in defining the term "atheist". All I am doing is requiring the same of the term "theist".Apparently you don't like that approach....

My criteria depends on the evidence in favour of a concept being a human invention.Tell me where I am going wrong?

So from all of that we can conclude that you are a "theist" because you believe in a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent eternal being who is the creator and sustainer of the universe. As per the definition of "god" you have supplied.If you are going to argue that "common usage" should define the term "atheist" then surely the term "theist" and the term "god" should subject to the same criteria.So Lets abandon this "generic" nonsense shall we? You put yourself forward as an example of a theist in this thread. Message 132You put yourself forward as an example of a theist in a conversation where the terms atheist, theist and god are being defined and now you are protesting when the definitions in question are applied to you.....?Don't play the personal-belief-hurt-sensibilities card.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Tell us what evidence you have that the Easter Bunny is not real.Then tell us if you accept that there is any evidence that "generic" gods are not real.

Does Zeus meet the definition of "god" you have provided?
Are believers in Zeus theists?