Jayhawker Soule

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps those who wallow in common usage and refuse to bow to etymology should be battered with a good dictionary. At the same time, I suspect that you lack a belief in God, that you lack a belief in the Kizzuwadna, and that these represent distinctly different types of attitude.

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

HelenM

Why not just say no? What's wrong with 'no'?

I think it's silly because I think that anyone who wants to define God, is perfectly able to do so. Whether they agree or not on a definition, is a separate issue.

I feel like some people here are confusing 'defining God' with making some sort of concession to there being such a person/being as God. I think that's silly too because I don't see why there need be a connection.

Is Santa Claus defined? Does Santa Claus exist?

love
Helen

Jayhawker Soule

You object to the term 'God' because "it more describes a behavior than a thing" and counterpose "Zeus", who you then describe as a "chief god", etc. As soon as I ask what you mean by this, you have no recourse but to revert to a discussion of attributes/behaviors.

Autonemesis

I find the entire idea of a site devoted to "Challenging Atheism" to be absurd. Atheism merely declines to make the claim of the theists, so how can it be challenged?

joedad

Yes, but the difference is between god and God.

My point is simply the very abstract nature of God as compared to "god" or "a god" in most of my dealings.

And that's why earlier I used the man vs Man comparison. If I capitalize man and turn it into Man, what exactly IS that, rhetorically speaking, or any such capitalized common word for that matter?

I'm not a slave to etymology, but I think that it helps understand the development and today's usage of the word God.

joe

HelenM

Fwiw, here's more about why I think the "God is undefined" approach is silly...

I think you could play the same game with anything that we all know does exist, in reality. (I'm not asserting God does but I'm simply showing why it's an absurd way to try to prove God's non-existence - if that's the point of it)

So, take some known thing X and whatever you say about it I say "nope, that's not what it is - that's what it looks like/what it's used for/what it's made of/where it came from, etc. So, you haven't defined X yet!

That's why I think it's just a silly game with words.

love
Helen

AtlanticCitySlave

"A" means (or can mean) both "not" and "without", so it's easy to see why atheism is defined in two ways:

1) Atheism: not the belief in God.
2) Atheism: without the belief in God.

It seems odd to me that someone who thinks the term "God" is meaningless would call themselves an atheist, although in the past they were often referred to as "semantical atheists". A noncognitivist seems more suiting to me, and I think Drange's paper is good as well. However, I think the (2) sense of atheism is a legitimate position to hold, since many of us don't flat out deny that God exists, but rather just don't really have any reason to believe, at the current time, that one does.
But, for arguments sake, the guy/girl is telling you exactly what they mean by atheism (the term "God" has no meaning), so I would think it best to just get on with the conversation and not waste time over who's definition is right.

Theli

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Theli

Correction - Atheism: Lack of godbelief.

If you say "belief in god" you are identifying god as a single absolute being. "God", "The God", "The only God"
That definition neglects polytheism.

AtlanticCitySlave

Of course it does, because theism, while being defined as the belief in a god or gods, almost specifically applies to one absolute god.

If we were against pantheism, we would be apantheists