Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

I'm guessing you can get even lower. How about answering the points that have been raised?

Yes. On issues of such importance, I wish to be more clear and be able to explain myself. On issues of pie, I just want some. Nope.Based on a given definition of a god, and based on a given definition of atheist/agnostic, I can answer rationally how I stand on the proposition. Since the definitions of god are myriad and the definitions of atheist/agnostic less so but still rather broad in spectrum, to answer rationally I must understand the definitions used by the questioner.For any given definition of atheist/agnostic, there are some propositions of god I will likely be agnostic about and other proposition that I will be atheistic about.JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

You could perhaps cut to the chase and tell us which god/s if any, you are prepared to say you believe in.

Perhaps he just can't help himself.When it comes to voting and atheism one doesn't need to look far to see how extreme atheists, like Dawkins (The God Delusion), are seen and portrayed by even moderate Christians as being anti-Christian, anti-religion.And you can certainly believe that any politician that professes atheism would run into knee-jerk rejection from many people (Tea Party jingoists?). Agreed, his insistence on his interpretation and his intolerance of other more moderate views are antagonistic and would not be viewed kindly by a voting public. His antagonistic behavior would feed right into the popular American view of atheists.America is so polarized and religion is so politicized that I think it would be difficult for even an agnostic or a deist to get elected to a national office (representative, senator or heaven forfend president ... ) these days ...... even though we have had Deist presidents (like Jefferson, who took all the miracles, supernatural stories and revelations out of his version of the bible ... published after his death ...).But I am heartened by the first Buddhist being elected to the senate -- maybe because Buddhism is not seen as an antagonistic religion. It does have some similarities with Deism that I personally like.

quote:

---

New Congress to Welcome First Buddhist Senator, Hindu Representative

​

When the new members of Congress are sworn in on Jan. 3, the institution that once mirrored the nation's Protestant Christian dominance will look slightly more like the religiously diverse nation it represents. The new Senate will seat a Buddhist member for the first time and the House of Representatives will have its first Hindu member.

​

Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), who currently serves in the House of Representatives, won her Senate race last week and will be sworn in as the Senate's first Buddhist. Hirono's House seat will be filled by Tulsi Gabbard, who will become the first Hindu in Congress. Hirono will also be the first Asian-American female and the first person born in Japan to be elected to the U.S. Senate.

​

The new Congress will have at least seven members whose faith is not from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Besides Hirono and Gabbard, two other Buddhists, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) and Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D-Hawaii), were re-elected. Two Muslims, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.), were re-elected. And Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) will be Congress' only atheist after winning her first House race. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), the only atheist in the current Congress, lost his bid for re-election. Sinema will also become Congress' first openly bisexual member.

---

So maybe there is hope ... as long as you are not running in the "bible-belt" states. Hinduism is also interesting in that it sees all incarnations of god/s world-wide as different aspects of the one god:

quote:

---

... Because of the wide variety of Hindu traditions, freedom of belief and practice are notable features of Hinduism.

​

Most forms of Hinduism are henotheistic religions. They recognize a single deity, and view other Gods and Goddesses as manifestations or aspects of that supreme God. Henotheistic and polytheistic religions have traditionally been among the world's most religiously tolerant faiths. As a result, India has traditionally been one of the most religiously tolerant in the world.

---

Looks like Hawaii leads the nation ... when we include Obama as the first black president. Maybe there is hope.

quote:

---

The current Congress also has six members who would not identify their religion.

---

But maybe we still have a ways to go before the religious beliefs of politicians is just not important to politics and we can fully realize the freedom of religion as written in the constitution over 200 years ago.Enjoy.

Weird. If you're an atheist, I don't see how any of that stuff could matter.Like, if a Hare Krishna, or whatever, started questioning me about my beliefs under the guise that my eternal life depended on my answer, I'd be all: "You silly person, none of that stuff is real, I don't give a fuck." You could just build the definitions into your answer, no?"I'm an X, which means I believe Y, as it pertains to Z." Maybe you can help Tangle understand how you can be agnostic on god-stuff.

There isn't a single god that has ever been described to me by a believer (or I have read about) that the evidence has been convincing enough for me to adopt a position of belief in that god.JB

(First, there's an assumption in that question that I'm an atheist - so for this post let's suppose I am.)It only matters in that if a person is honestly asking for my position (and I respect them enough to want to answer), I value them formulating an accurate picture of my position in their mind. It's communication 101 -- if feel inclined to describe my position, when I'm done I'd just as soon they understand my position correctly.(BTW, in most Hare Krishna encounters I would likely do something very similar to your example. I'm not interested in stating my position to someone who isn't actually interested in hearing it.) Sure, but that can be horribly inefficient. If someone says "Hey, my wife just cooked a big dinner and we have extra. Please give me a list of the foods you like and dislike, sensitivities/allergies, etc. and I'll use that information to decide if I should invite you in.", it might be easier for him to just tell you what his wife cooked and then you tell him if it fits within your dietary boundaries. Yes, it's all about the definitions. JB

Then you can say that you are an atheist......what's the problem?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Since it clearly involves some missing or added words, I'm going to interpret the above to say something like "why not just say you are an atheist - what's the problem?"The problem is that there are commonly used definitions of atheism that don't apply to what I described as my position. Thus many MANY people upon hearing me declare my atheism would ascribe to me a position I don't hold. I'm particularly referring to the definition of atheism that states one is then asserting that god does not exist.JB

Sorry, I edited it at the same time as you posted. Regardless, it seems that you don't believe in god?

I said "If"... Hmm, maybe I'm just more apathetic.I don't have a problem taking a question at face value and then just spouting my mouth off.What's the big deal? More inefficient than having the questioner define all of the terms in the question? I don't think so. Um, that long phrase sounds like how you would respond to the question...It might be easier to just answer the question and then correct any misunderstandings afterwards.

Regardless!? That's exactly the thing that people have been trying to get you to regard.

And that is the problem with that usage. Say you are an atheist in the company of those who define the term as such and you are perennially faced with people saying idiotic things along the lines of "oh yeah, go on and prove that God doesn't exist" or "You think you absolutely know that God doesn't exist so you are a fundamentalist" or "you can't know for certain so it's just an assertion of your baseless opinion" and so on and so forth.But nobody ever has to declare themself an a-unicorn-ist and face the same idiocy even if their approach to gods and unicorns and leprechauns and jabberwockys etc. etc. etc. is exactly the same. Prove to me leprechauns don't exist. Oh you can't? Oh you instead cite the evidence that they are human mythological constructs? Oh the irony......The term "atheist" as commonly used is a loaded term in many ways. It embraces the special pleading afforded to theism. That can be fine for shorthand everyday communication on these matters. But if one is attempting to make the point, as Tangle is here, that theism should not be special pleaded in this way then embracing terminology in which the special pleading is inherent makes the task somewhat difficult. Just relentlessly saying "it's common usage" just misses the entire point.Surely you can see why someone who no more considers their lack of belief in gods as any more a provable or an "assertion" (with all the connotations that has) than their lack of belief in unicorns is going to resist that definition....No?

Sure, but my unanswered question remains: WHY?Why care? Why go against the grain? Why even make the point? What will you gain?I care so little about the existence of leprechauns that you can tell me whatever the fuck you want about my insistence that they are not real and I'll just laugh at you because you're retarded.If you care about gods as little as I care about leprechauns, then why not just shrug, giggle, and then go about your day? Why even talk about it? THEN WHY USE THE TERM?If its such a bullshit term, and nobody is using it correctly, then why even utter the syllables?If I was as strong of an atheist as I am an a-leprechaun-ist, I'd just be laughing at everybody. I wouldn't even engage them, well, maybe I would make fun of them.The fact that you guys actually do care about this stuff, suggests to me that you are "special pleading" the gods just as much as everyone supposedly is. If gods were as little of importance to you as leprechauns are to me, then the thread would be one page long. I'm still not convinced that its special pleading.As I said, its just a special case, no pleading involved.I know for a fact that leprechauns and unicorns don't exist, without a doubt. 100%.I don't think anybody can honestly say the same thing about gods. I mean, they're all magical n'shit - you can't measure that! The point has not been missed. Its just, well, pointless. Why should anyone care?If peope were dogging me for being an a-unicorn-ist, or whatever, then I wouldn't care in the slightest. Its fucking unicorns, I know that they're not real.If I couldn't get elected because people won't vote for an a-unicorn-ist, then I wouldn't call myself one.I wouldn't go on some tirade about the injustice of the special pleading of my enemies, or whatever.You know why? Because I know that unicorns are not real. Why should I give the slightest fuck? That's because gods ARE different. Nobody knows if they're real or not. No, I certainly can. I'm just not going to waste my time right now, because they're stupid leprechauns. Of course they are, everybody knows that.Does anybody know if gods are human mythological constructs? I don't think so. I WOULDN'T TALK TO THOSE PEOPLE.And I wouldn't care.Why do you do it? Wait, what was the problem, exactly?

The entire world and its history is shaped by belief in gods in a way that it isn't by unicorns or leprechauns. People want to indoctrinate children, kill each other, stop scientific research and make laws on the basis of religious conviction. The British queen is the head of the church if England. The U.S. president could never declare himself an atheist. Every ceremony and holiday has religious roots.To genuinely treat gods as I would leprechauns in such a context isn't remotely realistic and would require cultural ignorance on a disabling scale. I will probably never read a treatise on the existence of Leprechauns but I would be deemed an ill educated ignoramus if I said I knew nothing of the Bible or what it pertains to. Even Dawkins says he is an Anglican atheist....So in a lot of everyday contexts there is a role for special pleading theistic beliefs for social and historical reasons. The problem comes when that same special pleading that is all but socially inevitable gets applied to logical and evidential arguments about what exists and what doesn't. Using the terminology that embraces the special pleading is socially useful but philosophically......irksome.