Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

I made a promise to myself that I wouldn't explain this yet again.It seems that no matter how many times I say this, nor in how many different ways, the greatest minds in EVC just cannot keep it in their minds from one post to the next. I'm not asking you to agree, I'm just asking you to stop asking the same damn questions over and over. Try processing and remembering what I've said. I'm really sorry, that it's not what you want to hear but do try to deploy that supposedly rational mind and not simply reject it on sight because it doesn't match your preconceived and inviolate ideas. Re-read about cognitive dissonance and denial, it's hard to focus on, and think about things that you reflexively disagree with isn't it?So to explain yet again.I've thought about the god hypothesis for many years and read much about it from all aspects - religious (mostly Christian), scientific, philosophical. I think that the evidence rules out theism conclusively for all the reasons that are littered through this forum. The case for Deism can't be proven either way. That is the formal definition of agnosticism - no one can claim knowledge of god, nor show that god exists or does't exist.I assume that is also you position.However, I go further and say that I believe - NOT KNOW, or CAN PROVE - that god does not exist. I look into myself and find that despite all the hyper-rational, intellectual debating positions, that I have a lack of belief in god.This is a state of mind, sort of, but not equivalent to, the emotive state called belief. The believer just KNOWS. I just don't, and feel that if I don't know, then I don't believe. And nor do you.I have never claimed to have conclusive proof that god does or does not exist, in fact I've said over and over that that is impossible. The fact that you still say that I do after all this time should make you think a little about how you are processing what I am saying.

So it's back to being merely patronising. Progress of sorts I suppose.If you wish me to answer you, please try to read, process and remember what I say and have said. Read all the posts. If I'm not answering it's because I've done it a dozen times, or I'm pissed off with your behaviour and don't trust myself to reply in a civil way.Give it a thought.

Ok, I can see that you have no interest in trying to understand what I'm saying. So much for the enquiring mind.

No I don't.Now, using what I have said in this thread, explain to me why I say that.I'm asking you to demonstrate that you understand my argument and can reproduce it, even if you disagree with it. You do, after all, claim to have an independent, enquiring mind.(To show that I'm not interested in nit picking, I'm not even going to complain about the totally unnecessary and absurb intermediate step of 'necessity' that you've introduced without warrant.)Please do it without condescension or insult. If you resort to either, I'll just ignore you.

That's pretty much diametrically the opposite of what I have said and mean, but it does describe how you've misinterpreted and twisted it to say what you'd prefer it to mean.It's not as though I - and others - have only explained this once and not attempted to put it in different ways or corrected your errors in understanding. (That's your understanding of what I'm saying, not whether it's right or wrong.)So be it. This horse has been flogged enough. Perhaps, if nothing else, the next time you call yourself a deist, you'll ask yourself how you can say that if you don't actually believe in god. Try not to fool yourself.

I see your frantic searching and copy and paste, mining activity crashed EVC...It's a shame you didn't put as much effort into attempting to understand my position as you have is misrepresenting it.Anyway, as I said, I'm out of this now for a while - it's not going anywhere. I'll leave you with this: I agree. And you not understanding why I say that, demonstrates that you haven't got anywhere near what I'm saying.So long for now.

Actually, I always believed in the Wankel engine......it too shall come to pass. .

I can't really make much sense out of the idea of a fundamentalist atheist. Fundamental lack of belief I could own up to I suppose, but that's about it. It seems that anyone who claims to be an atheist must also be 'fundamental'. Some sort of pejorative labelling attempt to categorise us alongside the wackier elements of religious cult and fanaticism I guess. Very silly, insulting and tending towards prejudice - presumably why atheists can't be elected and Americans shy away from admitting it even to themselves.And just for the record, I'm also not insisting that people that don't believe in god call themselves atheists either; I'm just pointing out that that's what they are - they can call themselves whatever they like - including a logically impossible agnostic, Deist. But I'm not getting into that again for a while.

Sure is.You ignore the new main discussion point about the iniquitousness of calling atheists 'fundamentalists' and instead try to drag the argument back into the old one that's been thrashed to death using yet another false analogy. I believe you guys call it bait and switch?Not touching it, sorry.Perhaps you could move us along and deal with the new point.

Given that the ONLY definition of an atheist is someone that doesn't believe in god, it's a bit of an all inclusive term isn't it?

There's something about this subject that seems to addle otherwise sensible minds. I have not mentioned YHWH. I have also said many, many, many times that an atheist doesn't believe in ANY Gods/God/gods/god. It would be a piss-poor atheist that believed in any god at all..... Fine, that's the only reasonable position for an atheist to be. Exactly like me. Three possible positions. He's puddled, he's not an atheist or he's praying to god in the same way as I swear at god - habit.

So now we have atheists that believe in god......? ffs, this is a new order of insanity. I certainly don't, and I have made that very clear. (Not that that makes any difference, of course.)What I'd like to discuss is why you think an atheist - that's the dictionary and formal definition - ie someone who doesn't believe in god/s, not some other convoluted fabrication - is equivalent to a fundamentalist?

If atheism doesn't mean a lack of belief in god/s then it has no meaning at all.Top 5 google hits on the term 'atheism.' The last is the correct one. Oxford English dictionary
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Wikipedia
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]Webster
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity Urban
1.) A person who lacks belief in a god or gods. People who use this definition categorize atheists as either negative (or implicit or weak) atheists or positive (or explicit or strong) atheists. Negative atheists, while they don't believe in a god, do not positively assert that no gods exist. Positive atheists, however, do.2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist. Atheists .org
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

There is only one definition of an atheist! It's someone with a lack of belief in god/s. No other definition makes any sense at all.All the dictionaries, wikis and atheist organisations say the same thing.The definition has two flavours that most people would think are the same thing: one is the lack of belief in god/s the other is the incorrect one of a disbelief in god/s. I'm not arguing the difference between those two forms here - it doesn't matter for the sake of what is being discussed.Which is: why are atheists also fundamentalists?

And yet I agree with Dwise1 about atheism - see last post. So how can this be? Could you possibly be confusing disagreeing with you about it being fundamentalism? I am utterly tolerant of other's positions - even yours. I just disagree with them.I suppose that if I now said "golly gosh RAZD, you've been right all along, silly me", I'd no longer be a fundamentalist? Is that what it takes?Do you recognise difference between tolerance of a position and disagreement with a position?