Archive for the ‘Defining god’ Category

February 2007

You ask how I can tell someone that I don’t believe in god without defining the term — whose god don’t I believe in, mine or theirs? That’s a good question. From my perspective, since I say that I don’t believe in god since I have seen no compelling proof for the existence of a […]

Posted on February 8, 2007 at 8:30 pm by ideclare · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Defining god, Discussion, Strong atheism

February 2007

The problem is that the terms “rabbit” and “aliens” do not refer to a specific entity. Therefore, showing one rabbit or one group of aliens to be nonexistent does not show that all rabbits or aliens do not exist. The term “god” refers, in monotheism, to a specific entity, regardless of how one might describe […]

Posted on February 7, 2007 at 12:37 am by ideclare · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Agnosticism, Defining god, Discussion, Strong atheism

February 2007

Well, then let’s make a preemptive strike and eliminate those definitions of god which include contradictory elements before they are even formulated. These will simply be nice boundaries, a starting framework, so to speak. I also think there is less disagreement about the definition of god than you suggest, and that the parts most widely […]

Posted on February 4, 2007 at 9:13 pm by ideclare · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Defining god, Discussion, Strong atheism

February 2007

I think most theists would admit that they’d still believe in god even if they had no evidence of his existence, which is what makes such a belief faith. In fact, I do not think there are any, at best fantastically few, people who believe in god on the basis of evidence or arguments. The […]

Posted on February 4, 2007 at 11:59 am by ideclare · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Defining god, Discussion, Strong atheism

February 2007

For example, to me it is a matter of faith — something believed without proof — that the laws of physics do not change and that my perceptions are (at least in some way) a reflection of reality. I thought the common definition of “faith” is “belief without evidence,” not “belief without proof.” When discussing […]

Posted on February 3, 2007 at 12:59 am by ideclare · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: About atheism, Defining god, Discussion, Strong atheism

February 2007

First of all may I apologise for not initially providing a real name and email address, I didn t actually look at your correspondence section before I posted the comment and decided it might be unwise to publish a name and email address on such a… perhaps ‘aggressive’ looking website which seemed to offer no […]

Posted on February 3, 2007 at 12:55 am by ideclare · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Defining god, Discussion, Suggestion

February 2007

I think it’s fine to structure our beliefs in response to arguments from others, but I do not think we should structure our beliefs, in particular standards and vocabulary, to accommodate any particular dogma. I would argue that there is a qualitative, not just quantitative, difference in the meaning of the word “faith” as it […]

Posted on February 3, 2007 at 12:49 am by ideclare · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: About atheism, Defining god, Discussion, Strong atheism

February 2007

Welcome back to fun stuff :) I don’t know where to start, so I think I’ll just begin with the minor points and hopefully that will take me somewhere. Well, any creator entity that would be empirically bounded would be as much God to us as a scientist would be to germs in a petri […]

Posted on February 3, 2007 at 12:47 am by ideclare · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: About atheism, Defining god, Discussion, Strong atheism

February 2007

I think I made a mistake when I chose the word supernatural to describe what I meant. What I actually meant was a realm that exists outside the boundaries of empirical reality and is independent of matter and physical laws by definition, and thus is not accessible to human experience in any way, certainly not […]

Posted on February 3, 2007 at 12:29 am by ideclare · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Defining god, Discussion

February 2007

to the person who wrote the responses in the notable correspondence section: i’ve read about half of the exchanges in that section. according to your responses, you seem to believe it is possible that there might one day be sufficient evidence for belief in god, and that “strong” atheists have no “philosophical leg to stand […]

Posted on February 3, 2007 at 12:27 am by ideclare · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Agnosticism, Defining god, Discussion