Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

I think that the issue here is that you can frame the distinction as you suggest, and band together everyone who has no belief in a god, and label them all atheist. On one level, that's fine - and from an etymological point of view, is a good noun to use.However, there are useful reasons to distinguish between those atheists who (whilst they do not believe there is a god) accept that the universe is a complex enough place, that some form of consciousness behind some or all of it could be possible on some level - and those atheists who don't simply lack a belief in a god, but actively believe that there are no gods (probably on the basis that the evidence to the contrary is sufficiently overwhelming). We could probably put Christopher Hitchens into this latter category.We might distinguish these groupings by referring to them as atheists/militant atheists, or agnostics/atheists, or agnostic atheists/gnostic atheists. It doesn't matter a great deal what label we apply. But I think the distinction is useful, because it makes a difference when the two groups relate to people who do have faith in a god. The former group (I'll call them agnostic atheists) generally have less axe to grind with believers, with little direct conflict between their views. The latter group, gnostic atheists, generally have far greater conflict with people of faith, having as they do more directly conflicting views, and often arguing that humanity would be bettered if people of faith simply abandoned their "primitive beliefs".If we don't draw the distinction, we polarize the debate, and focus on the extremities of the two world views - fundies and militants get heard more and more, and the middle ground of gentle, enlightened progress that we've had for a few centuries gets trampled over. If, however, people of faith feel that some (most ?) atheists won't try to tell them they're primitive fools, then we'll bumble along well enough.That's surely a good reason to make the distinction. And "agnostic" isn't a bad word to use to make it.

For me, there lies the rub. There is, in my experience, a spectrum of atheism, ranging from "I don't believe in any god, but there could be something - it's impossible to know" to "not only do I not believe in any god, I believe that there are none".It's common to atheists, as you say, that there is no belief in a god. But the degree of certainty that there are no gods varies.I think that that variety is relevant. I have far more respect for someone else's religious faith than I believe Hitchens did, from his writings. It's relevant to me, to distinguish myself from the sort of atheist that he was (and others still are).Given that atheist is a label in widespread use (we know that from the stories on this thread), I want to ensure that I don't acquire the trappings of that label, which the more militant atheists (for want of a better term) have brought to it.Given that their type of atheism includes a lack of significant doubt that there are no gods, then gnostic and agnostic atheists are not bad distinguishing terms to use. Semantically, they're not ideal, because I agree that even Hitchens would have acknowledged (he probably did somewhere) that he doesn't know absolutely that there are no gods. But the degree of his lack of doubt on the issue, makes the distinction almost irrelevant - at some stage, a towering lack of doubt becomes indistinguishable from knowledge.I term myself an agnostic, not because I am looking for the most precise word to use to describe myself, but because it has become a reasonably well accepted label with which I am happy enough to identify myself.

I'd agree with Cat Sci on this one. I can be a bit of a traditionalist, when it comes to language and grammar, but I've reconciled myself to the language changing from its strict, etymological roots from time to time.I could, for example, tell you that I had fantastic sex last night. This would not mean that I'd shagged a unicorn.Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.

Those dictionary references are really interesting. Merriam Webster defines atheism exclusively in terms of a disbelief in deity, and refers to a doctrine that there is no deity. In other words, exclusively in terms of an active disbelief.The Oxford English dictionary goes with "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods". In other words, it covers not only the active disbelief of MW's definition, but also a simple absence of belief - two distinct states of mind (albeit with some overlap).I would humbly submit that the OE version is etymologically more accurate (from the Greek "a", meaning without and "theos" meaning a god), but that doesn't matter too much. What's important is that we have, underlined here, a real difference in the current meaning of the word "atheist" in the States and in the UK.Tangle - I am a bit of a stickler for the precise use of words - I'm someone who is irked by the fact that the word "data" is now used in the singular, for example. But words change meaning, and if the precise, etymologically correct use of a word is being widely replaced with a different perceived meaning, then at some point, the traditionalist is going to get misunderstood.I completely agree with you, that on a strict, etymological reading of the terms, every honest person - theist or atheist - is agnostic. (Not that everyone is that honest, which is part of the issue). And that people who disbelieve in gods are just as much atheists as people who neither believe or disbelieve in them.But if the distinction between people who actively disbelieve in gods, and people who neither believe nor disbelieve in them, is important and useful (which I believe it is, and which the discrepancy in the dictionary definitions also suggests it is), then the use of the word "atheist" to refer to those who actively disbelieve, and "agnostic" to refer to those who neither believe nor disbelieve, is useful. Perhaps also very real and current in the States, if the MW definition is anything to go by.None of this lessens the point that no one should be barred from public office, based on their faith or lack of it. But the terms of reference have evolved a little, from their original meanings, I think.

I think you're overstating the case. I suppose that there may well be people who refer to themselves as agnostic, because of a perceived stigma associated with the term "atheist", but there will equally be many who use the Merriam Webster definition of "atheist", and feel that the definition does not describe their views - because whilst they lack a belief in any god, they equally do not believe that there are no gods.Those people aren't conforming to a belief system they don't sign up to. In fact, by refusing to be labelled as part of a group, whose beliefs they don't share, they are actually refusing to conform to a belief system they don't sign up to.This is all an issue of labels and differing definitions. And whilst there may be a certain stigma attached to the word "atheist" - I'm sure that there is - I think that by limiting the range of human views in this area to a binary choice between believer and atheist, you aren't fairly reflecting that range, and are increasing the stigma attached to atheism.I agree with a lot of what you have said - but I do think that a view that there are no gods is different from having no belief that there are no gods - and I think that it is reasonable to distinguish them. I do not see the latter group as being akin to a homosexual in a heterosexual marriage.Edited by vimesey, : Few more thoughts