Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

I tell "good news" door walkers that I am a leprechaun-ist. I tell them that all the experiences and other "evidences" they may put forward are the result of these mischievous critters having a laugh at human gullibility.This does not go down well....

Gosh how silly of me not to comply with the "but deities are different" paradigm. My apologies. Carry on....

I can only assume that there is some cultural miscommunication going on here but I too am baffled as to why any mention of the term god is being interpreted as purely a reference to YHWH. I guess in some circles it would be similarly assumed one was talking about Allah. It must be a UK -US thing....

The definition Tangle is using is very arguably not the definition most commonly used at present. But it is 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.Now it is probably too much to ask that you adopt his usage of the term in question. You are too dogmatic for that....But are you really going to insist that everyone subjugate themselves to your preferred definition regardless of any argument against that usage? Must we all adopt 'the one true' definition....? Isn't that a bit intolerant? Inflexible? Isn't that a bit..."fundamentalist" of you?Enjoy.

I have already said repeatedly that in common everyday usage (on the rare occasion that such things come up) I use terminology in the way that Cat Sci is insisting it must be used. Because that is very arguably the modern mainstream social convention.However there is a reasoned case for using terminology in the way that Tangle is advocating. Especially in the context of debates about belief or the lack thereof. Contexts where atheism or a-leprechaun-ism or a-unicorn-ism or indeed any other a-ism one can name, should be judged on their merits on a terminological level playing field.The idiotic insistence in this thread that deviating from anything other than RAZD's or Cat Sci's preferred definition is some sort of radical act of outlandish fundamentalism - Is just hyperbolic nonsense. And when those that are insisting on their 'one true definition' start telling others that they are being dogmatic - Well the hypocrisy burns (to throw that phrase back where it came from).Using a-ist terminology to refer simply to a lack of belief in something is well established, widespread and perfectly legitimate. The fact that people are getting so upset by what is effectively a semantic argument just goes to show how deeply rooted the resistance to holding theistic beliefs as no more privileged than any other, really is.

Oh boo hoo. Feeling hard done by are we...?Don't act like you haven't made out that Tangle's preferred definition is somehow unique or "personal" when in fact it quite obviously is not. Well ditto to the alternative usage. It has been explained to you repeatedly why that usage is "better" in the context of discussing the nature of belief in such a way as to not apply a double standard.So given your open minded approach we can expect you to accept and even adopt the usage Tangle is advocating can we?Leprechauns might fly......

Message 55

If you are willing to accept that Tangle's usage is legitimate, has historical precedent and that there is a reasoned case for it's use - Then why the hell are you still arguing against it being used here?

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.

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?

Or pointlessly ambiguous questions result in accusations of being incoherent and non-cognitive to which ignosticism is the most valid response.ignostic (plural ignostics)1. one who holds to ignosticism.
2. one who requires a definition of the term God or Gods as without sensible definition they find theism incoherent and thus non-cognitive.ignostic - WiktionaryBut even as an ignostic the answer to the question "Do you believe in God?" is still strictly "No". As it is for anyone who isn't actually a believer.What we find time and time again in these "atheism" threads is that a bunch of theists and deists bash on relentlessly about how unjustified the atheist position is as applied to some undisclosed concept of god that they are apparently keeping secret. Some of them (e.g. Cat Sci) will agree that most defined concepts of god are pretty unbelievable. But still talk about some undefined concept as demanding greater credence.How they know that this concept they have in mind is even a "god" if they have no idea what it is - I don't know.So I would suggest that if they are going to talk about god/s whose "qualities are not well defined" then they need to at least come up with a sensible set of qualities that something must possess in order to qualify as a "god" in the first place. Otherwise how do they know the thing they believe in is a "god" and that they are a "theist"?

The definition Tangle is using is very arguably not the definition most commonly used at present. But it is 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. Except that this particular "fundamentalist" has repeatedly pointed out that in common everyday usage I use the terminology as is being advocated by Cat Sci.Which rather pisses on your assertions of "fundamentalism" on my part.It is you, rather than I, who is insisting that everyone subjugate themselves to your preferred definition regardless of any argument against that usage.You old fundamentalist you.Enjoy

A Skeptic's take on souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens and other invisible powers that be