From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A few points to raise . . .
Date: 1 Oct 92 02:30:20 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Sep29.145537.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>In article <72891@apple.Apple.COM>, mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>> Not so fast. I don't think the situation is anything like this

>   Here we go again...

Oh, I don't think so. Relax.

>   It sounds like what you are saying is that God (in this sense) is
>something that is made up by humans, therefore it exists.  Is that right?

No; what I am saying is that the word 'god' is used to, among other
things, refer to phenomena that seem to me clearly to occur. These
phenomena may or may not be inventions of the human imagination
(depending on what you mean by 'invention'). I am noncommittal on
the true nature of the phenomena to which I refer, but I am atheist
in the sense that my working hypothesis is that they are not
supernatural entities responsible for creating the world that we
know.

>   *Sigh*.  I have a very bad feeling that this is going to degenerate 
>into another argument about the definition of atheist and of God.  It
>seems like what both you and the person who first posted this thread 
>(sorry, I forgot your name) are doing is to make up your own definitions
>of God that do not conform to what might be called the generally accepted
>definition of a god as a supernatural/spiritual being.  While this is not
>necessarily a bad thing given that God is a broad concept, the trouble is
>that in going so far beyond the "accepted" definition it opens the door
>to redefine pretty much anything.  If what you mean is human conscience or
>construct of order then say so; just don't call it God.

Presumably, you mean 'don't call it God in this forum.' Fair enough;
As I originally said, I don't really care how I am to be classified
(though the current state of the classification is a matter of
curiosity for me), and I don't mind using whatever usage is the
convention in whatever group it is with whom I am participating.
Indeed, I have defended the strategy of using the prevailing usage
rather than an idiosyncratic one more than once in this forum.

These concerns seem to me to be relatively trivial matters of
protocol, easily sorted out among reasonable people by expression
of preference. If someone wants to turn them into definition
flamewars, we can easily cope with that strategy by simply ignoring
it.

I am more interested in talking about those phenomena that fit the
idiosyncratic definition I previously explained; I don't have
a good idea what alternative designation might be appropriate,
but, as I say, I am happy to work with whatever another interested
person likes. If there is no other interested person, well, that's
easy too: the conversation stops.

>> It seems to me that the phrase 'God does not exist' is
>> idiomatic for a class of claims about what sort of existence
>> God is supposed to have. I very much doubt that many people,
>> if any, assert that there is actually no phenomenon, psychological,
>> cultural, social, or metaphorical, to which the label 'God'
>> can be legitimately applied.
>
>   The trouble with this statement is that since "God" clearly has to 
>mean *something*, even if it's several things, and is a commonly used
>term, it also means that there is no phenomenon to which the label 
>"God" cannot be legitimately applied.

Really? I am at a loss to understand how you arrive at this opinion.
I think 'God does not exist' means (to put it one way) that God's
epistemological status is similar to that of Sherlock Holmes, not
to that of George Bush. I don't think people have any trouble
making statements of fact about fictional characters and regarding
them as true in context of the suppositional realm to which the
fictional characters belong. The trouble with God is that various
people have different opinions about the subject's epistemological
status.