Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

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?

So that's what it boils down to: it irks you.Don't you think you're bringing it upon yourself if you're going around telling people that your an atheist?If it really bothers you so much, wouldn't you just not mention it at all? Just forget about it and not be irked by it anymore. Doesn't that justify the exemption, and therefore make it not special pleading? Yeah, well, I haven't seen those logical and evidential arguments.You arguments, while some of the best ones, didn't quite get there.

The hypocrisy, it burns!

Please don't lie about my position. Quote me saying anything like that or retract it.I've repeatedly said that the other usage works and can be used, I just think that my way is better and I explained why.Tangle is the one insisting that his usage is the one that must be used. His only argument has been that he is right and everyone else is wrong.The evidence is in Message 570, the second half. That too is a lie about my position. I've explained that the charge of fundamentalism does not stem from the definition of the word, but instead from the insistence that he is the only correct one and everyone else is wrong, and then maintaining that claim in the face of contradictory evidence. You know, like creationists behave.Again the message is in Message 570, the first half.In Message 573, you wrote: It is not me who is insisting that everyone subjugate themselves to my preferred definition regardless of any argument against that usage, that is what Tangle has been doing. He even replies to my arguments that use my definition of the word by equivocating his definition of the word into it and instead replying to that, which is dishonest. And then he has the gall to say:

quote:

---

after I've corrected him half a dozen times on what I mean by it, there can be no further confusion. Yet here he still is insisting on his personal version.

---

Which is exactly what he has been doing all along.And now you're lying about me to try to get me to be the one who looks like I'm doing what he has been doing.Have you no shame?

What, lying about me? Yeah, that's wrong. I haven't. Quote me saying or implying that.Or, you know, just stop lying about me.

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.

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.

I honestly think there is a better way, why would I not advocate for it?There's even issues on the theist side...When asked the question: "Does god exist?", some people will go: "Yes, god does exist."Others, like myself, will refrain from taking that positive position. My response would be more along the lines of: "Well, I really don't know, but I do think that a god exists. I believe it, but I won't claim that one does."I've had conversations in RL with hardcore True Christians^TM where I've just told them I was agnostic. They were so sure of god's existence that I knew that I couldn't be grouped with them, and I wasn't willing to say that god did exist even though I'm technically a christian. It was a lot easier to just say that I was an agnostic than go through the details of my position on the matter - partly because of what I know about those types of people and how they would react.But if that was here, in an online philosophical discussion, then I'd still object and resist their alternative definition being applied - where you're either a theist or you're not and you're an atheist - because I do think that dichotomy is false and that it is more complicated than that, and that there is a better way to describe the whole situation.If I truely believe that it is a better way, then why shouldn't I argue for it?

That's not all of it, there's more to it than that.I don't reject the Easter Bunny just because it is unevidenced. I reject it because of all the evidence that we have that shows that it is not real.Not all gods are in that exact same category - where we have a bunch of evidence showing that they are not real.As the details of the concept, regardless of whether it is a god or not, get less defined then it gets harder to make a rational rejection of it.You can easily remain unconvinced of its existence because it is unevidenced, but to go into a position of active rejection is going to take some evidence if you want to remain rational. Or if not, ya know, reject all the things. IDGAF

Ah, so you decided to go the irrational route. Thanks for sharing.

How do you ever tell if you're employing too much scrutiny and then missing out on something?

Except that I had repeatedly accepted that the other usage was valid and could be used... so I could not have be insisting upon my own.That's just not what insisting means. I don't care about leprechauns, they're fictional Irish folklore. I don't know what any of those things are, except for pixies... are they leprechauns or not? I don't know the properties of god, nor do I really know the qualifications for being one. If you think I'm being dishonest, well, then fuck off. Where have I said that they are more believable?I said they were less disbelievable.Seems different to me, but I dunno. I the number -1 more positive than the number -2? Or is it just less negative? I wouldn't say that it is more positive, would you? What makes it seem that way?Because I'm fully aware of the evidence and explanations in that link, but I believe in god anyways? Is that it?

Only if through my objection I do not permit its use.I've always accepted the alternative, I've been saying that I think there is a better way.When someone says that my way can't be better because it is wrong and can't be that way, then that is what you should be calling insisting.Earlier when I admitted that I was objecting, I meant in the sense of arguing for a better way rather than refusing to accept the alternative. I've even wrote that explicitly a few times beforehand.So drop it. Okay, I can see where he's coming from.I wouldn't rule out the concept of the duende as describing something that is actually an effect of something that is real. I'm not convinced that it is, but I kinda think that there might actually be something funny going out there that people are noticing.It doesn't have to be supernatural. It could even be technological, or extra-dimensional, or paranormal, etc.I certainly won't agree that all those cultures that have this concept of some thing that can be described as a duende are describing an effect of something that is not real or that solely sprang from their imagination.So which label does that get me? It is a "god" because that is the word we use to describe the concept I'm considering. I am convinced that there is a god (unlike the duende).I don't know what qualities make something count as a god, but I'm pretty familiar with the qualities of the god that I believe in.As the properties become more detailed and less generic, I find it easier to determine if I reject them or not. You sorta whittle away at it until you've got a (admittedly) shitty representation of a god. You're not too sure about the finer details, but you're starting to get a general idea.Hell, I whittled it down to nothing many years ago. But over those years I kept noticing more wood growing up, I've keep whittling away at it more, but I gotta admit that there's something there. There's some weird shit that goes on, and some of it is pretty convincing.Sometimes you realize that we're not really on to everything, and other times you think that maybe those ancient people were on to something.So as you add more qualities to the duende, it makes it easier for me to reject it. Like I've done with the leprechaun. That ain't right, those aren't real. Those guys might be on to something that is, but they're wrong that it has the properties of a leprechaun.If I saw one I'd figure it was some alien technology, or something like that. I know they don't sit at the end of rainbows ('cause those don't touch the ground). Admonishing? For applying a definition? Not at all. I did strongly deny an insistence.And my "personal definition" can be accurately described with the term god.Edited by Cat Sci, : grammar

Yes. There's enough details to my personal concept of god for you to rationally reject it.You'd certainly be an atheist to my version of god, and for good reason. I don't have a problem with that.

The selection criteria depends on the details that I can extract from the concept.Without much info, its hard to determine that it was human invention.As you get more details, it gets easier.