Richard,

Indriel is refering to this I presume.

Guys I’m sorry. I’m going to have to go. Someone is messing with my comments and I don’t know what to do now.

Do you mean your comments here are being changed from what you intended? If that is what you mean, I’d certainly want to know because the integrity of this blog is very important to Hemant and me. So far I have not found any evidence of tampering. If you are having any trouble submitting your comments please let us know either here or by email by clicking “contact me” at the top of the page.

I’m not objecting to using the standard definition. I’m just asking you to state it. Any definition will do.

If you aren’t objecting to the standard definition, then you clearly know what it is, so for what reason should I need to state it? Please… we’ve seen these little word games so many times, and it’s tiresome. Nor is the way that you have mentioned, what, three or four times? that you USED to be an atheist at all subtle. Clearly you are itching to say something, so please, just say it and have done.

But, really, I’m going to forgive Richard and Awesomesauce.

That’s nice of you, I guess, but I’m not really clear on what they’ve said that needs forgiving. I, um, forgive you too, Indriel.

I agree that, to a certain extent, many atheists here refer to “God” or “religion,” when they really mean “the Judeo-Christian depiction of God,” or “Christianity.” But really, what else are we supposed to do? Being an atheist means that I’ve never heard a religious or supernatural belief that sounds plausible to me. It’s hardly reasonable to expect me to “define God” by listing all the hundreds of things I’ve heard that I don’t believe in. A single, all-powerful, all-benevolent entity that controls every aspect of existence? Nope, don’t believe in that. A number of gods in a polytheistic mishmash, each responsible for different aspects of existence? Nope, still not sounding plausible. An impersonal, non-sentient force that pervades and unifies all of existence. Nope. A space lizard whose waking dreams define our reality? Another no. An immortal who lives at the North Pole and is primarily concerned with an annual delivery of presents to good children? Still not sounding reasonable. I could list things I don’t believe all day, but it would be a ridiculous way to start a conversation. As others have pointed out, the only way to have a reasonable discussion is for the person who believes in something to begin by explaining what they believe.

I have listened openly, earnestly and sincerely to many, many, many people go on and on and on about this very popular word until I sometimes think that if I have to listen to one more, I’ll go completely mad. After all that I still know nothing about it. I can only say it is a word. From what I observe, it is a three letter, one syllable word over which people hate each other, shun each other, beat each other and kill each other, a word that divides people from each other and from themselves more quickly, deeply and permanently than any other word in any language. The only reason that I have any interest in it is that I’d like to see all that hating, shunning, beating and killing stop.

What your statements seem to be getting at, Indriel, is that you redefined the word for you and now that you have, you are objecting to others using the standard definition. How is that reasonable or useful?

I’m not objecting to using the standard definition. I’m just asking you to state it. Any definition will do. It can be standard or your own personal definition. But, really, I’m going to forgive Richard and Awesomesauce. Even if we do agree on a definition we’re still going to be arguing back and forth on God’s existence. I don’t think we’ll get anywhere now.