Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

Dude - Despite the silly accusations of "fundamentalism" I am being about as un-dogamtic about this as it is possible to be. I have already told you that in general everyday use I essentially use the definition that you are advocating. Isn't that enough for you?But in this thread I am trying to explain to those who seem baffled as to why anyone would not just blindly accept that definition as the final word, why that might be.The assumption among theists in this thread seems to be that Tangle's aim is simply to class as many people as possible as "atheists" because it will give him a warm happy glow to (by your definition) mis-classify as many as people as possible into the same grouping as himself. Or something along those lines.I am simply pointing out that this isn't true and that there is instead a reasoned case to be made for defining things as he is. I don't expect you or RAZ or anyone theistically minded to adopt that usage. You guys are far too dogamatic for that.......But the point remains - Terminology as commonly used reflects the social prevalence of theistic belief. It effectively special pleads theistic belief. Someone who is objecting to that special status may well very validly object to using terminology in which the special status they are objecting to is inherent. And in a discussion about atheism there is a case for using language that is more generic rather than that which embraces the special pleading that is (almost unconsciously for the most part) widespread in society.It's not that difficult.

Why do you insist on being such a fucking idiot? Why do you insist on saying something that is so different from what you mean that it's practically the opposite? What the hell does that have to do with your cognitive problem? Yes, we know that already. So why do you insist on saying the opposite of what you believe? No, it does not. "Any god" means any god. "Gods" refers to any gods. "God" used as a name refers specifically to YHWH. The phrase, "believe in god", uses "god" as a name and hence refers to YHWH. To get the desired meaning of "any god" you could say "believe in any god" or "believe in the gods" or even "believe in gods". But you refuse to wording that indicates "any god or gods", but rather you persist in using wording that specifically refers to YHWH. That is how English works! Learn how to use your own language! You have not mentioned YHWH by His real name (which would be a violation of that Commandment, but then you don't keep kosher either), but in English "God" is used in place of YHWH. And in English "believe in god" is the same as "believe in God" (for native English speakers who naturally don't know how to use their own language) which means "believe in YHWH".You've explained what you mean, but you insist on saying the opposite. Say what you mean instead of saying the opposite!Is that explicit enough to finally get through to you? Please pull your head out of your ass and stop being such an idiot!

Try this: [msg=593] it looks like this when posted Message 593There is also a message id number in gray that is unique for every message on this board, it is the gray number in parenthesis on the line at the top of a post: and you can link to it with [mid=750576] which looks like this when posted: Message 593The first method links to message 593 on whatever thread you post it on, the second method links to message 593 on this specific thread no matter what thread you post it on.For instance I can refer to Message 353 and it links to that number message on thread Is My Hypothesis Valid??? (which you may read if you are a masochist for long and sometimes acrimonious disagreements finally resolving into agreement)As relates to Message 613 I find it a little amusing that both Tangle and Straggler (and DWise1 for that matter) are saying that the word "atheist" is not a good descriptor, given the length of discussions I have had with them defending their beliefs with this word.If you want to link to a specific message on another thread you can do it this way:[tid=6960], [mid=503755]: as in:

quote:

---

Straggler in Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?, Message 332: I am an atheist because I consistently do not believe in the actuality of that for which there is no evidential reason to even think possible.
...
There is no evidence of gods. Nor is there any evidence to suggest the possibility of gods. If there was such evidence gods would be evidentially viable concepts. If there was such evidence faith would be redundant.

---

(color for reference - read that thread if you are a masochist for really acrimonious debates -- Straggler and I have a history.)Or, more simply put, belief in the absence (non-actuality) of gods, due to the absence (perceived non-existence) of evidence for gods, which employs the same logical fallacy that Tangle claimed was his conclusive evidence for his (strong) atheism on this thread.That the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is a logical fallacy is clearly, imho, demonstrated by this image: All A is B does not mean that all B is A. (pursuant to Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists -- having a short course on logic would be a good starting place?)It should be noted that many theists do perceive evidence of god/s, many feel they have a "personal relationship" with their god, others see little things as evidence of divine interventions, miracles, etc. Perhaps what we should be talking about is skepticism rather than atheism.Politically here in the US (to return to the thread topic), I think it would be much more acceptable to say you are a skeptic than to say you are an atheist. This word does have wide usage in atheist circles -- see The NESSPerhaps if we frame the issue this way it will become clearer:

• A theist is skeptical of the perceived absence of evidence of atheists/atheism
• An atheist is skeptical of the perceived evidence of theists/theism
• An agnostic is skeptical of both the perceived evidence of theists/theism and of the perceived absence of evidence of atheists/atheism

Now (fair warning) there has been some substantial debate on elements of this terminology as well, and so I can categorize the following types of skeptic:

1. open minded skeptic
2. one-sided skeptic
3. closed minded skeptic

Obviously I prefer (and advocate) the first category. Equally obvious is that there are degrees of openness, and some may not be equally open to both sides of an issue.Now personally I would class both theists and atheists as "one-sided skeptics" because they are only skeptical of the opposing view and not their own. This is also called "false skepticism."The "closed minded skeptic" is an extreme example of this type and is one that refuses to accept any validity to the opposite side of the issue. This is also called "pseudoskepticism."

quote:

---

Scientific Skepticism

​

... the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position"

​

... termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism":

"There are some members of the skeptics' groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion ..."[29]

---

Climate change deniers are false skeptics, for example.So are you a skeptic? What kind of skeptic are you? Can the basic tenets of skepticism ...

quote:

---

Skepticism

​

In ordinary usage, skepticism (US) or scepticism (UK) (Greek: 'σκέπτομαι' skeptomai, to think, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to:

​

1. an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object;
2. the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain; or
3. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam—Webster).

​

In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about:

​

1. an inquiry,
2. a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing,
3. the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values,
4. the limitations of knowledge,
5. a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment.

---

... particularly "the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt" or "a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment." ... be applied widely, and is it a useful approach to learning new things?(pursuant to Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists -- would having a short course on different flavors of skepticism be useful?)Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : really

THANKS RAZD. JB

You appear to have lost your mind. There's not much else I can usefully say.

This is not a trick question, nor am I trying to catch you out, I'm trying to get to the bottom of what people are actually meaning when they're using the word atheist. It's a genuine surprise to me that it’s the subject of this much controversy. It certainly isn't in the UK.I don't have any problem with any of the terms in the definition in Webster's - apart from the archaic use 'wicked' of course (which perhaps gives us some clues.) There's important differences between them of course but not as important as the general idea behind them all. I have my preferred definition which I obviously believe to be the correct one - someone who lacks a belief in god/s - but I'm more interested at the moment in why theses definitions are such a big problem for people.Are you simply objecting to the use of the term 'believes a deity doesn't exist?' But would agree to 'doesn't believe in any deity?' (Or are you with Dwise1 in thinking that the word 'god' only means YHWH?) Help me out here. Does using one term rather than another make any difference when discussing it with a devout Christian?

We know that you cannot be elected today if you are openly declaring you are an atheist or even agnostic at the 5 or 6 Dawkins level, but how many elected Presidents probably LIED about this and got elected anyway? There was a famous incident with FDR when they didn't cut off the fireside microphone fast enough and he was overheard to mutter "...are we done with this God thing yet?" Did Nixon lie about his faith? Obama? Is Obama really a non-believer, as he tangentially referred to in his inaugural address, which would explain his poor attendance in that church? Is an atheist held in more or less regard in the US than a Muslim? Are they tied for most disrespected in the US?

Tangle, back in Message 593 you answered TAD this way: No, he can't. He is not ruling out the possibility that some day he will run into a description with enough evidence to adopt a position of belief.Imagine each of these descriptions being in a box that is too high for you to see inside. You reach in and take something out, look at it and reject it. So far everything you have pulled out of the box you have rejected. The atheist will conclude that there is nothing ever in the box that will be accepted. The agnostic allows for there to be a chance that something will. Edited by xongsmith, : never

All of which is irrelevant if you remove the word 'belief' from your analysis.You consistently refer only to evidence and rational argument which is simply not what belief is - it's an irrational, emotive feeling. If you leave that out of your equations you've simply missed the point. Again.And yet again, you misunderstand and misrepresent my position. I do not claim that there is conclusive evidence for the non-existence of god. I have routinely and frequently said entirely the opposite - it is impossible to prove the non-existence of god. I am, of course, entirely aware of the absence of evidence is not evidence of absense bumper sticker. You keep spouting these platitudes as though only you are aware of them.Try to understand that my claim is that as well as lacking a belief in god - which I request that you accept at face value because it's a subjective claim that I am the only evidence for - I also go further and say that god/s do not exist. I claim that because of the lack of evidence for them, as I have said and should be obvious, but also - and do try to get this point - because I *believe* that they don't. I've taken that extra step. That is an irrational claim and I'm perfectly happy to own it. But do not confuse it with religion or fundamentalism or a lack of skepticism. I'm as skeptical as anyone here and I am very open to changing my mind - given the evidence.Now what I say above is actually not the whole of it and doesn't actually properly describe the feeling - because that's what it is. It makes the feeling positive, an active disbelief, which it isn't. It's simply a lack of belief - that's why all this talk about special pleading is important to understand. We have Dwise1 now attempting to force a Christian disbelief on me! How dare Christians tell me which god I'm allowed not to believe in! This is special pleading in spades. I have a lack of belief in YHWH the same as I have a lack of belief in Zeus. Exacly the same. Apparently that is impossible to understand.I accept that people are not Vulcans, they have an irrational side which is older and probably more important than our recently acquired rational side, without which we'd be lost and hopelessly indecisive. It's time we grew up and accepted that our emotional decision making has a use in those areas where certainty can not exist.I'm not asking you to accept this, and I'm certainly not requiring anyone else to feel the same, But I am asking you to at least try to understand it and not dismiss it out of hand because it does not chime with your own beliefs. (And don't kid yourself you don’t have them.)

Thanks for trying xongsmith, but I entirely understand this point. I've made it over and over myself. But this is just the knowledge, Huxley, argument which everyone here agrees with. Of course we can't rule out the possibility of something cropping up in future. As far as evidence, rationality and knowledge goes, we're all agnostic. Tick.But TAD has dismissed all gods he's ever heard of. That by any normal definition means that he's an atheist. He doesn't even appear to be saying that he's agnostic about any of them. And that's without me having to suggest that belief and knowledge are not equivalent.

Thank you for that. I'll accept your word on that and continue. I don't have any objection to any definition as long as both people agree on the one being used for the exchange. If you are asking a question related to my position, then you have it correct but I word it slightly differently for clarity. I do not hold a belief that a deity doesn't exist. I also do not hold a belief in any deity that has been presented to me. The reason for that is a lack of evidence to convince me. Though there is nothing in your wording "doesn't' believe in any deity" that is wrong, many conservative people will take that wording "any deity" - full stop - and assign to you a position that you are now closed to evidence, which for me is false (as I suspect is the case for most atheists).You should know that in some circles (more educated and liberal parts of California for instance), I will often self ident as an atheist. This is because here in the US a more educated population tends to agree on and use the term in a way more consistent with the original greek. If I am in more conservative circles, but not fundamentalist circles, I will often ident as an agnostic - because I know they way they use that term is very close to my actual position. If I am in fundamentalist circles, I prefer not to ever ident with a label, but with a position - because once a label is applied and baggage piled on, no amount of explanation can sway them that they tossed you the wrong baggage.I find the usage of different term for different audiences to be no more frustrating than the differences in regional names for meals. Here in the US, in the rural south the mid-day meal is called "dinner" (as in breakfast, dinner and supper). In many other areas of the country, dinner is the evening meal. (as in breakfast, lunch and dinner). If you are invited to dinner, you better know and adapt to the region you are in or embarrassment will ensue. (ask me how I know). If you want a blank stare in the US, answer "which god?" when asked if you believe in god. They will look at you as if you just asked them a totally nonsensical question (because to them, you did). "God" is the interchangeable synonym for YHWH in this country - it's that way in political, legal (swearing in on a bible) and social circles.Also, there exist rather significant swaths of our population who DO consider you to be an atheist if your God is other than YHWH because its obvious that there is no other God than YHWH and thus you don't believe in God and deny his existence. Therefore you are an atheist, automatically a 'Murica hater and rape puppies for pleasure.JB

A: I do acknowledge the difference between belief and knowledge, though I'm not sure we would agree on "knowledge" as you are using it (I can't say for sure because I haven't read all pages of this thread and am filling in pieces and could be incorrect).B: Though I am consistent in my lack of belief in all god's I've been exposed to, there is a range of responses to each one that (depending on the definition) runs from hard atheism to agnosticism. I have not studied the origins of all gods, but generally speaking I make very few assertions regarding gods that I haven't studied and it seems the more I study about any given god, the more willing I am to assert with higher and higher confidence that it doesn't actually exist.As an example, Santa is considered real by some who have done no research(kids), but with research into the history and use of the character one can come to a rather high certainty that Santa is indeed a mythological character. A kid of 3yo could be the equivalent of a 'theist' when it comes to Santa. At 6yo the kid is 'agnostic' (again, depends on definition) and by 10 every kid is pretty much 'atheist' on the proposition. While technically it's impossible to prove a negative ("Santa doesn't exist") knowledge changes the ability to rationally assert it close enough for our purposes.If you describe your god to me and your belief is basically deism (no supernatural revelation, non interventionist), then I have no ability whatsoever to refute your claim so I wouldn't try. Starting telling me what your god is responsible for on a day to day basis and the results of his actions and you've now entered into the realm of the testable. Give me an ancient text and claim it's infallible and I'm off to the races (that's a LOT of testable).Tell me your God ran the table with a flood 4000 years ago and saved all living things with a boat of stated dimensions, that is testable. If the tests show it's nonsense and I find that origins can be traced to other ancient myths, before long I'm going to be a hard atheist to your claims. I can reach that conclusion, because I have both tested claims and come to a clear enough understanding of the origins of the myth to put it in Santa land.Tell me that your god created us through means that we can follow and verify (evolution) and that your book is written as a guide not as a historical text and I have less to test and less to assert regarding that god.And all of that has NOTHING to do with whether I would respect a god that I did come to believe in -- belief and respect are two very different things.That's me. Your results may vary.JB

Out of curiosity, have you looked at Hinduism? There are several varieties, but one of the seemingly central tenets is that all concepts of god/s are just different faces of the one god. How would your fundamentalists feel about self ident as deist? I do that when I get door walkers "spreading the good news," and I get a blank look. Then I ask them how old the earth is ...Enjoy

Yes, you sort of pick your favorite 'sub-god' - Shiva, Vishnu, etc. and go from there. Oh, that would have to be fun. I don't believe I've every met a fundamentalist christian who even knew what a deist was.JB

I think that if we're honest with ourselves, when we finally understand that Santa is an invention the tooth fairy and elves and so on have either already gone the same way or are just about to do so. We know and understand enough about the trope to extend it to all invented folklore beings. Once we've dismissed gnomes we do not spend too much, if any, time researching Icelandic trolls.It's the same for atheists and gods. Once it becomes obvious that the [substitute your own inherited birth god here] has no clothes, you understand the whole man made game. I doubt you feel the need to research Neptune before deciding to reject him.Equally, you can take it as read that no-one can actually totally dismiss the possibility of some sort of non-interventionist god, but beyond the pure intellectual acceptance of that concept, in reality we know it's as unlikely as an orc at the family bbq. And also irrelevant to any on-earth matter.