Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

1 - Ask a person - "Do you believe in god?"Answer is "Yes" - Theist.
Answer is "No" - Atheist.
Answer is "I don't know" - Atheist.If the answer is not "Yes" - Atheist.2 - Ask a person - "Is there a god?"
"Yes" - Theist.
"No" - Atheist.
"I don't know" - Agnostic.But 2 is a rather ambiguous question, perhaps essentially the same as 1, or is it perhaps essentially the same as 3 (below)?. It could be interpreted either way.3 - Ask a person - "Do you know there is a god?""Yes" - Delusional theist.
"No" - Agnostic.4 - Ask a person - Do you know there is no god?""Yes" - Delusional atheist.
"No" - Agnostic.Concerning god, there are two types of people - Agnostic or delusional.Does the above message contain any real enlightenment - I don't know.Moose Added by edit - 9 days later, a self appraisal of this message:

​

As I type this, this message has received 4 (+)'s. This topic is of a "hair-splitting" nature, calling for precise use of language. As such, while I think I do have some good content, there is also significant "fail" in this message. Although, in a way, perhaps even the "fail" had value.

​

2 - Ask a person - "Is there a god?"
"Yes" - Theist.
"No" - Atheist.
"I don't know" - Agnostic.

​

But 2 is a rather ambiguous question, perhaps essentially the same as 1, or is it perhaps essentially the same as 3 (below)?. It could be interpreted either way.

​

Yes, it is ambiguous, and I think I threw even myself off. It could be interpreted as a faith/belief thing, or as a science/evidence thing, both of which were covered elsewhere. The above quoted part is a blotch, and should not have been in the message. Was it a part that the people liked???Edited by Minnemooseus, : Tweek.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit - 9 days later, a self appraisal of this message.

Maybe we can say we know what god is not. Not with absolute confidence, but with a large amount of evidence to support what god is not.Example: A creator of everything of the universe, during what we know as 1 week, about 5 to 10 thousand years ago. We have massive (if not absolute) evidence that that is not god. If your definition of god depends on YECism, then we can say there is no such god. We can know that about as well as we know anything.So, if someone asks you "Do you know that god does not exist?", the first reply should be "what is god?".Moose

I think the better analogy would be "Do you like (aka - "believe in") Team A - Yes or No.and"Do you like (aka - "believe in") Team B - Yes or No.If you answer "Yes" to one but not both (which is your "choose between Team A and Team B"), you are "monotheist".If you answer "Yes" to both, you are a "polytheist".If you answer "No" to both (which is your "couldn't care less") , you are an "atheist".I think this might be the only clunker message you've ever done (and I've given you a lot of POTM's).Moose

I'm not, at the moment, up to composing my grand unified theism/atheism/gnostic/agnostic message. But I will say that I thinks that "agnostic" has significantly different meanings in different contexts, and we are working those different contexts.dwise1 presented the following definitions: Problems I find there include "what does denies mean"? Is that a gnostic or agnostic denial?Also, concerning what does "know" (as part of "unknown") mean? Is that a gnostic or agnostic "know"? And there's that fuzzy term "God".That said, what I really was about to do was post something "children born atheist". I certainly think they are born agnostic, and are not born theist. My God!!! Not theist??? That makes them born atheist (not theist is the most fundamental definition of atheist).MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Proofread wrong part of preview.

If you answer "no" to that question, you are an atheist (assuming you are of sound mind, truly understand the question, and are being honest to yourself and to the questioner).Answer "yes", you are a theist (assuming you are of sound mind, etc.)The only reason I see, to honestly answer "I don't know" (aka "be agnostic"), is because you feel you don't adequately understand the question for whatever reason. You may need a clarification of the meaning of "believe", you may need a clarification of the meaning of "God", or you may be mentally incompetent and/or confused. "I don't know" is another way of phrasing "I don't understand the question".So the possibilities are theist or atheist, with maybe a little grey area of confused. But aside that little grey area, theist/atheist is indeed a binary question. Not that a reasonably rational person can't flip/flop between theist and atheist, with a micro-grey area in the transition. Kind of like asking if a light switch is on or off - Even when you have the physical evidence, there still is that tiny amount of "I don't know" time.Moose

If a person is totally ignorant about any concept of god, they are not a theist and are an atheist.Then this person begins "working on learning about God". If they reach that point they can honestly say to themselves "I believe there is a god/God", they have just made the transition from atheist to theist. I think the transition happens "at the speed of thought".Moose

We (the collective debaters) are using "agnostic" in (at least) two different senses.1) You don't know if you believe or don't believe in god/God (the faith thing).2) You believe that you don't and can't know god/God (the know thing).Your position is that you know you don't believe (faith thing), which means your an atheist and you're a type 2 agnostic.Others believe that there are three possibilities - Theist OR atheist OR type 1 agnostic.I think Tangle and my position is that everyone is a type 2 agnostic, and that to be a gnostic (God is known or at least can be known) is not currently an option. Thus we have the possibilities of type 2 agnostic theist or type 2 agnostic atheist. That makes the type 2 agnostic to be irrelevant/redundant - It's theist or atheist.Tangle and I also think that type 1 agnostic is either non-existent or at least irrelevant to anyone who has any understanding of a concept of god/God. Either you have at least a tiny amount of god belief (theist), or you are an atheist. You can flip-flop between theist and atheist, but you will essentially always be one or the other. You will never be in limbo between for any significant amount of time.The only way to be a type 1 agnostic is to be totally oblivious to any concept of god/God. You can't believe or disbelieve in something you have no concept of.MooseAdded by edit - Even Faith seems to be showing signs of coming around to being a type 2 agnostic.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit.

OK, you can be an agnostic and you can be an atheist. But Tangle and I think that "agnostic" is an unneeded prefix in "agnostic atheist". All atheists are agnostic. Or are you going to find me a gnostic atheist? I don't think even Richard Dawkins claims that. Wouldn't that be be a 7 on his scale.Moose

The Duhgnostic variety of agnostic seems to be the person that some members upthread are plugging into the theist OR atheist OR agnostic trinary system. While this is technically incorrect, it does seem to be the most common usage.Or perhaps the Duhgnostic is another term for Ignosticism. That message has the subtitle "Re: Yes, no, or "I don't understand the question"", which was what I presented as an alternative to the theist/atheist/agnostic system.Ignostic is not a really a third position to the the question "Do you believe in god"? (or god/God/gods/etc, if you must). It's a statement that the question does not make sense and/or is unanswerable.And theist or atheist isn't a choose one or the other question. It's a "If you don't choose theist, then atheist is the default alternative". Theist/not theist. Not theist=atheist.Maybe agnostics can be divided into three types:1) True agnostics (don't and can't know god).
2) Ignostics - The use of "know" and "god" in True agnostics is so poorly defined as to be worthless.
3) Duhgnostic - Just plain stupid, confused, or mentally incompetent.Moose

The ancestors and ghosts would seem to be of god like nature, so I say theist. This falls into the perspective of ignosticism. That is, the situation is so ill defined as to be unanswerable. But I guess if one were to think of this ill defined "spiritual essence" as a manifestation of god, then one would be a theist. My weak understanding of Buddhism is that it is a life philosophy and not a religion. Atheistic. Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity,[1] or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God. Theistic. It's at least part of the definition of agnosticism (seemingly dwise1's, if not yours). dwise's fuller version is along the lines of "The belief that you don't know and can't know if god/s exist". The "can't know" is an unprovable (but disprovable) hypothesis. Certainly, if one can't know, then one doesn't know. The Tangle/Moose position is that one doesn't know, but that doesn't rule out that later one can know. Disproving agnosticism is to prove gnosticism (at least if you consider gnosticism to be "one can know that god/s exist".Regardless, agnosticism (dwise1 use) is not a third option in the theist or atheist question. As the 4 field advocates have pointed out, one can be a agnostic theist, an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist. But the Tangle/Moose position is that gnosticism is not really a valid option. Nobody is really a Dawkins type 1 theist or type 7 atheist. Which leaves agnostic theist or agnostic atheist. And while the dwise1 "agnostic" term does have use, agnostic theist or agnostic atheist still functionally reduces down to theist or atheist.The Dawkins "gnostic" above, used in the sense of "know" and not "know god". Being a "know god atheist" would be an oxymoron. I would say neither, BUT that "cusp" is essentially of no time length. Not remotely long enough to think "You know, I just don't know".Even in binary electronics, there is that state between 0 and 1. But that doesn't make it a trinary system. It's a binary system with a transition.Moose (and a long enough message to jusify posting my "sig")

An addendum of sorts to my previous message.Agnosticism is the belief that you cannot know.Atheism is the know that you cannot believe, or more precisely, atheism is the knowledge that you don't believe.Each is an evaluation of ones personal belief/knowledge. In agnosticism, an atheist recognizes that he might be wrong. In atheism, an atheist recognizes that he has a (lack of faith) position, and that that position might be subject to change.MooseAnother added by edit:"I don't know" agnosticism is either irrational confusion or rational recognitions that the question is flawed. Basically, ether the questioner or the questioned or possibly both are confused.One should be able to give a coherent answer to a coherent question.One can give an incoherent answer to a coherent question.One really can't give a coherent answer to an incoherent question, other that something along the lines of "that question is incoherent, at least to me".Of course, "coherency" is also a judgement call.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit.

Someday the grand summary message, but for now... In past messages you've invoked both considerations of belief by evidence and knowledge agnosticism ("god is not and can not be known") AND belief by religious faith agnosticism ("I don't know what I believe"). The above quoted is the second usage.The Moose/Tangle position is for the above example person to ask him/herself a question, and give an honest answer:Do I have any belief in any way to any supernatural influence (aka god)?Yes - TheistNot yes (which includes "no") - AtheistIf one can not honestly tell oneself "Yes", then one is no longer a theist, and not a theist = atheist.One may be confused and madly flipping between theist and atheist, but one is still one or the other.Which in the Moose/Tangle perspective of the type 2 agnostic is that agnostic mean "confused flip/flopping between theist and atheist". I and I presume Tangle will grant you that definition of a type 2 agnostic.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Minor tweek.

Added by edit: A more specific reply to your message: I see your example as "the special pleading dancing that said (ex-fundie) person does when they can't be honest to themselves, that they've just slipped into being an atheist".*End of added by edit. *Your "agnostic" is not so much a rational alternative position, as it is a slipping into (extra?) irrationality. Hopefully such doesn't last long, or the person will have gone from "theist" to "insane".-----Another perspective from AronRa (Nonreligious Questions ):

quote:

---

One of my oldest and dearest friends is this way. He is an atheist in denial. He says he is not convinced there is a god, but he can’t be atheist because he’s not convinced there is NOT a god either. He seriously thought that was a valid argument!

​

For my friend, and for the millions of other unaware atheists out there, let me clarify this for you:

​

You are either convinced that a god exists, (Theist) or
you are not convinced that any god exists (a-Theist).

​

There is no undecided ‘maybe’ middle ground to escape to: You will remain unconvinced until you are convinced, and the whole time you’re not convinced, that’s when you should be saying maybe, but I reserve judgement until you prove your case, which of course theists will never do.

---

Much more there, both above and below what I quoted.Although I don't think I'm buying his claim of being a gnostic atheist.Agnostic ("there is no way of knowing god") is the only available scientific position. That "agnostic" is disprovable, but only by "knowing god", which to me means having extracted god from the supernatural into the natural. To know god is to fundamentally redefine what a god is. As such, any supernatural god is still unknowable.A person of science can be a theist, but the science itself must be agnostic. And since considerations of (a supernatural) god is outside the realm of science, that would also make science not theistic (in the other word, atheistic). Which is NOT to say that science is also no-god-istic. Not theistic and "there is no god" is not the same thing.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit at top of message, 1.5 hours after posting original message. Original message content is unedited.Edited by Minnemooseus, : * Footnote added to previous added by edit.

My variation: Ding - they've gone atheist. Still atheist. Ding - back to being theist.Moose

At about the same time you were composing your message, I added a footnote to what I said above. It became: What I say in the footnote seems to be confirmed by what you next posted (excerpt quoted below): Agnosticism, not a rational position but a situation of irrational cognitive dissonance. A irrational position. I agree. Perhaps I was inadequately clear, but my intent was the same as what you said and quoted above. As in the agreed upon "science is agnostic". As in the quaternary(sp?) gnostic theist/agnostic theist/gnostic atheist/agnostic atheist diagram. Which is actually just two binary diagrams put together.I have repeatedly said that this topic has had two different "agnostic" uses. (1) is (I think) as used in the above quaternary diagram. The science agnostic.But you've been operating mostly, including most recently, in the 2nd theist/atheist/agnostic consideration. That it is possible to not know if one is a theist or atheist. Unable to come to a personal determination of what faith and belief position one holds. Then suddenly you switch over to the Huxley and wickipedia "agnostic" definition.To requote you: I agree with that definition of agnostic. But that isn't the same as your (ex)fundie being in a state of cognitive dissonance, unable to decide if he has religious faith in god or not.That cognitive dissonance agnosticism is an irrational position, not a rational position. That person needs to calm down and return to sanity, and decide "believer in god, or not believe in god". Or they could remain in a less-than-sane state of "agnosticism".Added by edit: Can science be theistic? If it is "not theistic", what does that make it?End added by edit.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Clarify quote attributions (and one very minor verbal glitch fixed).Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit at message end.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Fix a typo ("you" to "your"). Also change a "." to a "?".