> and his odd thought patterns. Well, in a moment of weakness, I
> decided to go ahead and come up with some new definitions, as
> it were. Here they are.
>
> <belief>: that side of the argument that one takes.
> <god>: an ideal being, that would take nothing but
> pleasure in the world, what with the world being
> created for it.
>
> I know the wording isn't exact, but do you still get
> the basic ideas?
I don't know, since I don't know what you had in mind.
It is possible to take a side of an argument without believing in it
oneself (by the usual definition of belief), for instance to explore
aspects of the argument (playing devil's advocate), to pretend agreement,
or to win a formal debate or legal case. Thus, I think this new
definition of yours would be confusing and not useful, in that it would
muddy that important distinction without clarifying any others.
As for the second definition, is this intended to categorize human beings
as "gods", since some people believe that the universe was created for us?
I have less of an opinion on this one, since I don't have much use for
the word "god", on the whole.
--Eva