Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

How you can still, after all that has been said to you, be confused by the notion that belief is a positive state and that non-belief can cover any lack of said belief - Only you can explain.You don't have to like that definition. You don't have to use it. In fact I know that you won't. But to simply acknowledge that there are reasons for applying such a definition really should not be too much to ask.Here they are again - a) widely used b) has a long history of use c) Is very far from being some sort of radical or individual usage as has been relentlessly asserted d) has the benefit of being philosophically consistent as applied to non-belief in most things most people don't believe in e) is true to etymological roots of language.Anyone who has ever responded to the topic of atheism by saying something along the lines of "Well go on then, prove that gods don't exist" whilst happily going about their a-leprechaun-ist ways without feeling any need to prove that leprechauns don't exist - Is engaging in a double standard.

Says the person who seems to be following my posts rather closely.

As a case in point...Any mention of the term atheist in practically any thread and RAZD’s little head will pop-up like a meerkat on heat. But when Cat Sci says: Not a dicky bird is heard from RAZD or anyone else.Like leprechauns and unicorns are not magical n’shit..Apparently the same standards don’t apply to other magical n’shit things because they aren’t special magical n'shit like wot gods are. Apparently.

Or a plea for good behaviour so that we can have a reasonable discussion about valid points of dispute. Take it at face value.

Is it? Other than Texas they would seem to allow several different religions and levels of belief. There is nothing there that outlaws Jewish or Deist (or Muslim) religions and at those times they would have been familiar with Jews and Deists (and that Muslims existed -- see Jeffersons letter to Muslims).But I still think that "skeptical" would be more acceptable to the voting public without any real loss of definition for the person in question. I know several atheists that prefer to use "skeptic" as a better descriptor of their beliefs. And I'm still talking about beliefs. As I was specifically discussing in Message 672:

quote:

---

Message 624 Tangle: All of which is irrelevant if you remove the word 'belief' from your analysis.

​

... I'm as skeptical as anyone here and I am very open to changing my mind - given the evidence.

​

Except, of course, when it comes to changing your mind on the definition of agnosticism to allow one that is a secondary definition for a position on belief.

​

quote:

---

Oxford Dictionaries
language matters
Agnostic

​

noun

​

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

---

​

Color added -- orange is the definition re knowledge and yellow is the definition re belief. That this is also the way the word is used in the general public is also an indication that the usage has been expanded since Huxley coined the term.

​

Regardless, whether you accept the definition and the word use (or not), your larger problem is that even one person that "claims neither faith nor disbelief in God" proves that your black and white delineation is a false dichotomy, that your position is simply wrong.

---

But what still makes it rather hilarious is that this whole thread has been side-swiped by you into making a point that has no real significance to reality ... who the heck cares what people say they believe, when they believe that what they say in fact describes their beliefs (and that they can discuss in detail if necessary)? Tangle: person A is obviously a theist!!! (Message 665"... a lack of disbelief in something must just mean belief in something which demonstrates that belief is a positve, active state") but Next breath: Person A is obviously an atheist!!! (Message 655: "it still boils down to a lack of belief in those god/s.")RAZD: curiously you are talking about a single person being both theist and atheist at the same time, and this demonstrates that your argument is false.Tangle: but agnostic is defined by Huxley to ONLY apply to knowledge ... it's different from talking about beliefRAZD: and I was talking about belief. So then let's define this type of belief with a different word if you don't want to accept that usage for "agnostic" (Message 672: for instance "noncommittalist" to apply to any person not committed\sure of belief AND not committed\sure of a lack of belief, ... a possibly larger group than is generally understood by the term "agnostic" ... as it would include ignostics and people that don't think about it and have not investigated their level of commitment to belief and\or disbelief ...)Tangle: (chirp chirp chirp) ...... the sum total of your response to my post was: Deflection is when you reply to two words of a long post and ignore the rest, pretending (to yourself) that those words were the most important argument in the post. Having a "reasonable discussion about valid points of dispute" would require that you actually participate in the discussion of the valid points of dispute I and others have raised, rather than complain about not being treated fairly (which is ludicrous coming from you -- you have zero cause to complain). Indeed, it is rather obvious that you are not even willing to discuss evidence contrary to your opinion, and that your claim: ... is not really factually accurate, this appears to be more of a lie you tell yourself ...?... when you reject simple evidence that doesn't even come close to the relative importance of belief/s -- not what they are but how we talk about them -- you can't even bring yourself to agree on the relevant terminology of the issue ...For example, let's talk about the topic in Message 1 assuming for the sake of argument that there are three groups of people:

1. people who claim faith in God/s
2. people who claim neither faith nor disbelief in god/s
3. people who claim disbelief in god/s

What matters more to the discussion of Message 1 -- what the people claim to believe or what you think they believe?Certainly in terms of politics it would seem that what was more critical was what they claimed.Now let's frame it a little differently

1. people who say that theism describes their belief in God/s
2. people who say that agnosticism describes how their belief is a mixture of some belief in god/s with some disbelief in god/s,
3. people who say that that noncommittalism describes how their belief is a mixture of some belief in god/s with some disbelief in god/s,
4. people who say that atheism describes their disbelief in god/s

What matters more to the discussion of Message 1 -- what the people believe they believe or what you think they believe?Certainly in terms of politics it would seem that what was more critical was what they said they believed.Now how is that different than in any other honest and respectful discussion?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ...

What the hell? Have you not been reading my posts?I think there is a better way to describe the situation. I don't think a dichotomy covers it.It isn't just either you believe or you don't. Some people believe that god does exist, some people believe that god does not exist, and some people don't believe either way.I think utilizing the term "agnostic" to cover that middle ground, and then reserving theist and atheist for the other two is a better way to describe it all.It adds clarity and removes confusion and just better describes the whole situation.I also think it is wrong for Tangle to insist that his way is the only correct way and other ways are wrong.How many times do I have to say this?ABE: It was a joke.But gods create and operate the whole Universe and know everything n'stuff.Leprechauns and unicorns just bend the rules - that's not magical as I was joking, its just paranormal.Like how Buzz Lightyear couldn't actually fly, he just fell with style Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

Well this is the problem of course. There is little point discussing this with you, if you're not willing to do it in good faith. As you now demonstrate, even after my plea. So be it.

Yes, you are the problem. There you go again, deflecting the conversation into perceived insult rather than dealing with the issues. Looks more like a total lack of good faith on your part to me.This is the third time in recent posts that YOU have not replied with anything of any substance, the third time you have dismissed a whole post based on a single sentence taken out of my several points, one that you stretch to perceive as an egregious insult.You try to shift the blame for your lack of any substantial reply to my post by cherry picking out a single word or two that you don't like ... So it still looks like you still have no answer, still have no refutation to the points I've made (several times).Perhaps you should complain to admin\moderation on how hard I am being on your tender sensibilities: here's the link General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') ...Enjoy

RAZ, dear chap, you are incapable of inflicting even a glancing blow on my sensibilities, this is the internet, just as it allows people to behave badly without consequence, it also allows grown ups to smile to themselves when the children misbehave.My interest is only in having reasoned and reasonable discussions about contentious issues. I lose interest when it turns into hyperbole, intransigence and name calling. Bye for now.

To the contrary, it is being completely honest. Words are being used in a way that is appropriate to the context of the discussion.

So then you have no reason to post those deflection replies rather than honest ones -- they don't accomplish anything of value, do they? Then respond to my posts in that manner, like an adult setting an example, instead of like a child making small petty complaints and pretending that it is all ... ... especially when you don't actually show any "hyperbole, intransigence and name calling" in my posts.Sometimes I have to wonder what alternate universe you are referring to when you make such claims. As your misbehavior continues to exemplify, rather than setting an example of the kind of post you purportedly want to have.Don't use an excuse to avoid a debate.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : /

Well you said this: And I can't see how that can be anything but hypocritical. Claiming to be an atheist is a strong statement - particularly in the US. I can see why people might not want to do that, but saying you're an agnostic when you know that you're not just has to be wrong. Doesn't it?

No, it doesn't.Taking the position of just not believing that a god does exists is a piece of cake and is perfectly rational.Depending on the qualities, taking the position of believing that a god actually does not exist is a little tougher, and takes a stronger rationale.When, in a philosophical discussion, you are questioned whether you believe in a god - and that god's qualities are well defined - then its easier to reject certain ones and just say "No.".But in ordinary life, when you are questioned whether you believe in a god - and that god's qualities are not well defined - then its easier to not reject them and just say "I don't know."As you keep pointing out, both of those positions are the same in that they don't take an active belief in the god that is in question. But that misses the point that there is a difference that is important to understand.This is an important difference that is worth preserving in the ordinary language. Throwing both of those positions into the same pile doesn't help the situation.I get that you're an atheist and are just going to reject them all. But from the perspective of a speaker of the same language (and regardless of the fact that I do believe in a god), its better if you have three spots to categorize the responses, than using the dichotomy that you are insisting upon.The most rational position is not deciding which way you believe until you get enough defined qualities to make a rejection. Its also the easiest.The way you're defining things removes that as an option. You're lumping us all into the not-believe camp. And some of us haven't made that decision yet.Plus, with your way, there's going to be a lot of believers who are going to think that we've all decided to be rejecting already. And that doesn't help us who are interesting in maintaining a rational position. Even that "they" don't see our position as being rational, because they're using the word differently than you, hurts the situation.If you strive for atheist acceptance, and I'm with you on that being something we should pursue, then I honestly don't think drawing a line in the sand and insisting on you versus us is a good idea. There's plenty of gods that we both reject. Even though some people can't reject some of them, and even more so that some of use actually believe in some of them, that doesn't cloud the fact that we realize that you don't.Your language preference isn't helpful in acquiring more acceptance. Not just because the irrational theists are being out-grouped, but you are also unnecessarily pushing away rational people that see things differently than you do. All over the usage of a particular word.After participating in this thread, do you think that you're arguments have improved the situation?The difference between the US and the UK may be having a significant effect on how much your insistence would actually effect us in our daily lives, but I honestly don't think that my theism is degenerating my arguments here into logical fallacies like special pleading and equivocating... that's really not what I'm trying to do.I'm just (well, not just ) trying to explain that there's a better way with the three-pronged approach, and that you're insistence on a dichotomy is counter-productive to atheist acceptance in the sense of you people being elected into office... especially here in the US - which is what your OP was questioning. I do keep try to keep the topic in the back of my mind.

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

So you are not insisting that your definition be used, but there is no context in which you won't object and resist the alternative definition being applied....Have you ever heard the phrase "splitting hairs"? Well I wouldn't go as far as 100% certainty for gods or leprechauns. Yet I am, apparently, a "pseudoskeptic". Meanwhile I have yet to hear RAZ raise a single objection to your 100% certainty a-leprechaun-ism.And you still cannot see the double standard in play here?