Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

All depends on the discussion parameters.If you are speaking in a strict logical formalism then, yes, the statement is wrong since, as you have pointed out if one is not a theist then, in a strict formal logic sense, they are a-theist.If you are speaking in a popular vernacular sense then, no, the statement is not wrong since being agnostic, as defined by the popular vernacular, means one neither believes nor disbelieves. They don’t know.This discussion has gone on and on and on over and over and over again and again and again and then has gone on and on and on over and over and over again and again and again and, yet both side are correct within their chosen spheres.In your strictly logical sphere you are correct, but so what? That is not the usage by most of the public in informal discussion. You may want to piss and moan about the popular vernacular being wrong but that is not going to change. That's just a fact you are going to have to accept in public discussion.On the other side I fail to see how anyone cannot understand and acknowledge the formal logic in the discussion. Someone who is a theist believes in their flavor of god. Anyone who cannot say they ascribe to a specific theism because they do not believe or (from the popular vernacular) they do not know, logically is not a theist. And in the formal logic sense anyone who is not a theist is an a-theist. One can piss and moan about the strictness of the logic and its resultant definition but that is also not going to change.Both sides are correct.So now what do you all do? Continue to piss and moan at each other over things that are not going to change?Is this really worth your efforts?Unfortunately, EvC has so destroyed creationism and its offspring, YEC and intelligent design, that all their adherents have left for greener pastures where they won’t get their teeth kicked in. So, now, all you all with your sharp skills and your sharp teeth have nothing to gnaw on but each other. Y’all are so itching to kill something you can’t see what is plainly right in front of you.In this drawn-out overblown excuse for a discussion thread both sides are right!Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : more change and cleanupEdited by AZPaul3, : title

Bull.Both side discard reality in not acknowledging there exists the alternative.The "reality" is that the logic exists as well as the popular vernacular. Each is appropriate within their spheres.While the others want to straight jacket their definition into reality, you want to straight jacket yours in the same way.Words are a means of communication. Word definitions are also flexible and are totally dependent on context.The "reality" here, RAZD, is that neither side has a lock on that reality.

I'm also sorry you retracted your post. I've been down with a bit of a bug lately and could have used something to get my blood pressure up.