Atheists can't hold office in the USA?

Are we at rock bottom debating tactics now or can you get lower still?

Love that tolerance and the way you honestly deal with my several (unanswered) arguments with consideration and respect, demonstrating your disagreements with specific points and sound logic.Enjoy.

Time for summation, this thread has descended to playground name calling.

Cop out. The ultimate debate avoiding move.Enjoy

I'll enter the fray with this: Published labels suck and usually don't fit anyone perfectly.If I'm asked if I'm an atheist or agnostic or believe in god, I simply ask in return "Define what you mean by god or which god you are asking about and define the terms atheist and agnostic". I simply can't answer that question without those inputs. I don't particularly care what definition you choose -- You just pick the definition and I'll answer according your chosen one.The options are far too many for me to answer with one label to all them.JBEdited by ThinAirDesigns, : typo

Here ya go: Ignosticism - Wikipedia Question: Do you like cake or pie more?Answer: Define what you mean by "like" and "more", as well as what you mean by "cake" and "pie", and then I'll answer the question.Really? Is that how conversations need to go these days?

You could be forgiven if we all thought you were brain-dead stupid.But you aren't. Your behavior in this thread has been so disgustingly dishonest that, despite my best attempts not to, it's really making me think very poorly of you as a person.Others have already pointed out your repeated use of the word 'correct' in describing your preferred flavor of atheism, so I have no need to waste my time going through it with you myself.Post it and forget it, I guess.Enjoy the delusion, Ron Popeil.

Well, if I sense that the cake/pie question entails issues of eternal life, the meaning of life, life after death, eternal tortures/rapture and the chance that I might be killed for my preferences, I'll likely ask for those definitions.But normally I'd just say: "I prefer pie" JB

This thread is a classic example of the wisdom of the previous policy of sending threads to summary after about 300 posts.

Oh, yes, Tangle has repeatedly "explained" himself by trying to redefine the clear English phrase, "believe in god", to mean something different from what it is always used to mean. That still does not change what that phrase means no matter how much Tangle wants it to.Faith would do the exact-same thing, try to change the meanings of words to fit her own private definitions, thus generating much confusion (the common goal of creationists) and drawing repeated corrections. It didn't work for Faith, so why would Tangle even begin to think that it would work for him? Besides, why would Tangle even want to become Faith?And far worse is how Tangle has pulled this topic so far away from the topic, which is why there's a prejudice against atheists in public office.

Oh, he would spend all week insisting to you that he was indeed an atheist. And the fact that he is the most pathological liar I have ever encountered has no bearing on that. He is thoroughly convinced that he was an atheist, albeit a Christian version of an atheist, which, like most everything else they believe, bears no resemblance to reality. Indeed, since what they think atheists are has direct bearing on the this topic (unlike your own personal maunderings which have only led us far off-topic), we should be examining and discussing what they think about atheists.And he wasn't just simply cursing God (as was the case in Bertrand Russel's "sick-bed conversion" in which while fighting a high fever the nurse mistook his steady stream of profanity for pious utterances), but rather he was indeed actually praying to God. Which, as he noted, was in accorandance with the Christian version of atheism. In other correspondence, we frequently are accused of knowing that God exists but we choose to fight Him, again in accordance with their teachings while being contrary to fact. Wouldn't you think that that attitude accompanies them to the polling place?My assessment is that he was pretending to be an atheist so that he could indulge his bubbling adolescent hormones without feeling any guilt. What else can you expect young Christians to do when you hand them a legalistic loophole big enough to drive a truckload of camels through?

quote:

---

Christian Teacher: "Oh, you mustn't sin! But if you stop believing in God then you can do anything you want to! So are you going to keep believing in God which requires you to behave yourself and to keep your hands off of your own privates? Or are you doing to decide to become an atheist so that you can do everything and anything your wicked little heart desires?"

---

What Christian kid could turn down such a deal? And the "Christian atheist" in question admitted right there in his story in his own words that that was what he did. That he did it to follow the trail of bubbles from his adolescent hormones. And of course it was the fault of evolution.And, yet again, that is what they accuse us atheists of, pretending that God does not exist so that we can do whatever wickedness we desire.So yet again, please stop taking this topic off-topic. It is the Christian voters who keep atheists out of office. We need to discuss why they do that, what they are thinking, and how they can be led to the truth.

That's such a bizarre concept that I have only just understand why you've been banging on about YHWY - despite me never mentioning it/him. An atheist is not defined by *which* god he doesn't believe in. If that was the case the whole world would be atheist. Is a Hindu an atheist? No one seems interested in why Christian voters keep atheists out of office. The original question was about whether there's legislation on state books that prevent it - I think the final view was that in some states there is, but it's not effective. But equally there's not much chance of it being removed.I've given you my reasons why Christians in the US keep atheists out of office, it's likely because they're bigoted - that's been my limited experience anyway - and there's not enough people in the USA willing to admit that they are, in fact, atheists. As we've seen very graphically here - even those that don't believe in god, don't like to say it. I'm beginning to see why - it's obviously still a stigma for Americans.But it's mostly down to you Americans to debate that, and, strangely, there seems not much interest in it - I wonder why?

Hey, Coyote, I don't think anybody heard you above the din. Would you repeat that, please? Maybe a little louder.

Why? Are the responses going to change your answer?Like, if I say that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god, then you're going to answer one way. But if I say that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god and they're going to spend their afterlife in eternal torture, then that is going to make you respond differently? That's good. You have secured your place in eternal bliss

That was just for software stability, not to keep us from beating a dead horse.