>It'll take some more work, but I think a common definition of "God" that
>can hit the definitions of practically all major religions and older
>mythologies is:
>
>1) A being with greater power than humans.
>2) A being with non-trivial influence over nature.
>3) A being that influences human activity through his/her actions.
>4) A being who has either personally, or through his or her lineage,
>created the universe or imposed order upon it.
Now we are getting somewhere. I think Reed raised some good questions
about these criteria, so I'll wait for your response to his message.
>>Someone who does not believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian deity
>>is usually called an atheist. I am not making this up. You can call them
>>whatever you like of course.
>
>So, is this a "real" athiest, then?
Yes, these are real people.
>>> Ah! I get it. "Real" athiests don't believe this, "real" christians don't
>>> believe that, "real" men don't eat quiche. Sorry I wasted your time. I
>>> didn't realize we were talking about anything real...
>>
>>Give me some credit or find someone else to talk to.
>
>I'm just a little impatient with the apparent mutability of the definition
>of "athiest" when you use it and the addition of the phrase "real" when I
If my definition seems to be changing it is only a miscommunication.
>can demonstrate evidence that there are people who lay claim to the same
>name who believe differently than you. I think you got a point off of me
Sorry, I must have missed that part. From my point of view it seemed like
you were defining atheist such that no actual living human would fit
into that category.
>already on this one, when I suggested that people who already held my
>position would agree with me? Aren't you begging, just a little bit?
Begging? I don't understand.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/