Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A few points to raise . . .
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:55:37 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <72891@apple.Apple.COM>, mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.174845.2076@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
> 
>>>In fact, I can state very simply that God *does* exist.  (Yes, I am a
>>>real atheist.)  
>>
>>I hate to break it to you, but by the definitions usually bounced around
>>in this newsgroup you are *not* an atheist if you believe God exists.
> 
> Not so fast. I don't think the situation is anything like this
> cut and dried. I know for a fact that I fit the definition of
> atheist used by at least some participants here (because they
> have told me that I do), but I can honestly say that I think
> God exists (although I'm going to have to explain what I mean
> in order to preserve my honesty; see below).

   Here we go again...

> If I thought that God were a sentient being with 'independent'
> existence who was responsible for the creation of all that
> exists, then I suppose you would have to say that I am not
> an atheist. However, I don't think that's true. Rather, my
> working hypothesis is that God is a projection of human
> intentionality on perceived order in the universe, and a
> rack on which to hang people's hopes and ideals; in other
> words, a construct, both psychological and cultural. There is
> little question in my mind that this projective construct
> exists; indeed, it seems clear that there is more than one.

   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?

> So what do you think? Am I atheist or not? (I don't really
> mind if you classify me differently from the way others
> have classified me, nor if you classify me differently from
> my own presumptive working classification).

   *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.
 
> 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.

Karl
Newsgroups: alt.atheism