Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

Stop rubbing it then.But surely, you don't translate 'god' to mean only YHWH, Yahwey, Jehova too?

Because it's intellectually dishonest. It's like a homosexual in a heterosexual marriage; done because of societal pressures not disposition. Yet if people that say they are agnostic but aren't 'came out', the societal pressure to conform to a belief system they don't sign up to would diminish and eventually you might find yourself in a less bigoted society where atheists (and non-Christians) might be able to get elected.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Possibly. I am trying to make a sharp point with what seems to be a blunt stick. Particularly in the US where it's obvious a big issue. Here in the UK it's just a shrug. Yes, I'm sure there are - possibly the majority. But I also think - without evidence - that those people, if asked, would mostly be confused by the question. There's a lot of couldn't-give-a-toss people who would possibly self-define as agnostics because they've either not thought about it or are lapsed church goers or it's just all irrelevant to them.I say that they are actually default or passive atheists because they don't believe in god. But if made to answer the question 'does god exist?' they'd almost certainly say that they don't know and most would call that agnosticism. Well I'd answer the same way, as would most here. The only person here that would answer that question definitively is Faith. None of us know whether god exists or not. The question doesn't tell us much about the person unless they're a believer.Take RAZD. He says in his strap line that he's a Deist. That's an active claim - I doubt I'd be alone in thinking that he believes in god but not the interventionist god of most religions. How does that work? What is the point of the word agnostic, if it doesn't define a person's position on belief in god?The point I'm trying to make is that agnosticism as an idea had its use when belief was central to everyone's world view, but following the industrial revolution when science became the accepted standard for knowledge, it became a redundant and confusing term. Correct - they don't belief in god/s ;-) I'm not restricting the range of human views - I accept that's what people say and is a version of how they feel and believe. I'm pointing out that it belies an underlying fact - those people are de facto non-believers and if they're not believers they are a form of disbeliever - for which the normal and technical name is atheist. I do already make the distinction between them - I've called them passive or default atheists - there is an obvious difference between what I say about god and what those that call themselves agnostics say about god. I'm just pointing out the weakness of that distinction in reality. In practical terms there's absolutely no distinction between an agnostic and an atheist. Neither of them worship, neither of them think about god from one day to the next or practice different rituals. Both of us would answer the question 'does god exist?' with 'I don't know.'The only difference would be that an agnostic would also answer the question 'do you believe in god?' with also with "I don't know'. I agree that the analogy is too extreme - but it begins to draw out the distinctions I'm trying to make. I also think we're cushioned by our UK experience; religion is a much bigger deal in the US than here.

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

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.

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.

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?

and to which definition of God do you rationally answer yes?

Yes, I know :-) This is the the problem - if you believe in god you are a theist or deist. That's straight forward. It really doesn't make any sense to then say that you're agnostic - in the matter of your belief you're clearly not. This is why the word agnostic is really of very little use now; it's used as a disguise as much as anything. Instead of a word to describe those of us that are rational enough to answer the question 'does god exist/not exist?' with 'I don't know,' which is true of belivers and non-believers alike, we need one to describe the irrational that say they do know. Probably it should be gnostic - except that has been taken and means something else.

Well yes, but that - as you say - is not god, it's people. But that was the question.... But again you're not answering the question. I'm not asking you what others think, I'm asking you which definition of God are you prepared to sign up to?At the moment it seems that you're just finding weasley ways of avoiding admitting that you're an atheist. Fine if you need tactics to keep talking to your Christian chums I suppose, but sort of pointless in discussions here.

Of course it is - it's dishonest! Unless, of course, you think people are gods, which I'm pretty sure you don't. They're not my definitions, they're bog standard, dictionary definitions.These people that use these apple pie and motherhood phrases I assume are actually god fearing Christians? Do they never ask you if you believe in Christ?

That speaks of the desire of people to be kind. Which is nothing at all to do with this: Now does it? Come on be honest, one is describing a desire in people, the other is a standard definition of a god. Ho hum, I really don't mind what they call it, I'm sure we both know what I'm asking. Have you ever been asked any of them? If so how do you answer?

There must be something about this thread that leads people to misrepresentation and misunderstanding.I am fully aware of the massive variety of weird and wacky views individuals have about both their religions and their beliefs. Despite your accusations, atheists tend to have a very wide understanding of the large number of belief systems out there because they're not tied into one and can look at them all from a position of objectivity. You can safely put that incorrect assumption aside.But I'm not interested in your friend's views, I'm trying to find out yours. However, you only seem interested in telling us your position in response to theirs which is interesting but not at all informative. Your friends seem keen to say what they believe and don't believe, but you do not. Why is that?

Pick one.

And yet you promote yourself as a Deist not an agnostic. Strange but true.