[IPAndrews]

Agnostics are spineless fence sitters .

[Lucika]

What in the name of undead horde...

"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."

Come on, this was in the 1800s... :S

[Herra Tohtori]

What in the name of undead horde...

"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."

Come on, this was in the 1800s... :S

Doesn't matter because it's still there.

Agnostics are spineless fence sitters .

Not really... in fact agnosticism is the only truly scientific view of the world, because science by definition does not and can not disprove claims like God or Celestial Teapot.

Of course a lot depends on how "atheist" is defined - either lack of belief in "God" or denial of God's existence. There's a difference between the two. Personally, though, I would say that atheist does not mean the same as antitheist, and in that sense agnosticism would be one way of atheism; however, the semantics of this matter are not much more than a frustrating game of words with everyone using the definitions that are most suitable for them.

[Woolie Wool]

Agnosticism is the "scientific" view of the world if you've never heard of Occam's Razor. Since there's no evidence of God's existence, God is an unnecessary term that can be dispensed with.

[Rick James]

Agnosticism is the "scientific" view of the world if you've never heard of Occam's Razor. Since there's no evidence of God's existence, God is an unnecessary term that can be dispensed with.

And most agnostics do. They're simply not willing to shirk the notion that there is no higher power of some form.

[Galemp]

The point is that it doesn't matter the way the law is phrased. You can't testify.

[Herra Tohtori]

Agnosticism is the "scientific" view of the world if you've never heard of Occam's Razor. Since there's no evidence of God's existence, God is an unnecessary term that can be dispensed with.

Occam's Razor deals with probabilities and complexity and states that unless otherwise proven, the simplest explanation is the most probably accurate one. It's a good tool but while using it, one should always be aware that the simplest explanation is not always the correct one, and absence of proof does not mean that it couldn't be found in the future; it just means that for the time being it would be most sensible to assume that the simplest explanation is the most accurate of available explanations.

Absolute denial of a non-falsifiable claim as such is just as fundamentally flawed position as is absolute faith in a non-proven, non-falsifiable claim. I do have my doubts about the whole concept of God though, but those would be better saved for another thread; suffice to say that since I have not seen everything that exists, I can't really make claims that something does not exist. Just like I can't make a claim that something I have no observation of would exist. I can say something is probable (and then I would need to experiment to confirm or falsify this hypothesis) or say that something is improbable, but that's as far as I can go with scientific method.

On topic: I wonder what would happen if some smart-ass lawyer started accusing every hostile witness of atheism and by extension perjury (since they swore on the bible and thus lied on witness stand)? How would it be handled? If nothing else, it would be a kick-ass method to delay the court until that little snippet of constitution could be worked out.

..."Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"
"I do."
"Hold on a moment. You're an atheist, so you just committed a perjury."
"What? No I'm not."
"Yes you are. You can't witness. In fact you are hereby accused of perjury because you lied yourself to the witness stand. How do you plead?"
"Not guilty!"
"Ah, but of course you would say so. You are just making this worse for yourself. Confess and repent, and we shall be merciful."
"This is blasphemy! This is madness!"
"Madness...? THIS IS ARKANSAAAAS! *booot*"


Let's say an atheist gets robbed or raped or something. They can identify the culprit, but they can't be witnesses in their own case without committing a perjury due to having to lie on a witness stand about their view of the world. It would be interesting to know if this part of Arkansas constitution has ever been applied in any manner in that state.

What the hell happened to the separation of state and church in that particular state.

[NGTM-1R]

Have you never seen a US election? Implying that your opponent isn't Christian is done all the time as if it's a requirement for public office. Cough. Obama the secret Muslim.

It's almost like you haven't see the outcome of that one.

It's totally unenforceable. You can't prove someone's an atheist (unless perhaps they're Richard Dawkins). It deals with what someone believes, and they can change what they believe whenever they like for however long they like, so they can be a pastafarian for the duration of the trial. If you try to disprove it you start getting hit with privacy issues and then before you can sort that out the whole thing's gone to the Supreme Court and your ass is grass.

[iamzack]

It's unenforceable, but goddamnit, it works. All they have to do is point out that a witness isn't Christian and they most likely lose all credibility with the jury. Just because the jury shouldn't take it into account doesn't mean they won't.

[Turambar]

It's unenforceable, but goddamnit, it works. All they have to do is point out that a witness isn't Christian and they most likely lose all credibility with the jury. Just because the jury shouldn't take it into account doesn't mean they won't.

Argh, it should be the opposite, and it would be with me.

"Oh, this person thinks that there's an all powerful being who had a son, and then had his son killed in order to guilt mankind into behaving, I wonder what other crazy things he'll believe, his suggestive nature makes his testimony unreliable"

[iamzack]

Yeah, but you wouldn't be picked for jury duty. They only want morons.

[karajorma]

No, they only get morons cause intelligent people are more likely to get out of it.

[iamzack]

Well, that too. But each side wants you gullible and easily swayed.