MrHen comments on Atheist or Agnostic? - Less Wrong

4 Post author: byrnema 18 April 2009 09:25PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (32)

Comments (32)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: MrHen 19 April 2009 06:18:08PM 0 points [-]

I think there are multiple obstacles in doing that.

  • This society may very well disagree on what God means in an irreconcilable manner
  • People not integrated into our society will use the definition from their last society and no one will know something is off
  • Any agreement will not cover all current uses of the word "God" or "gods"

As it is, "God" is a loose word and simply means what it means. If you need a specific definition I think it is simply best to define the term before using it. All of this comes back to the original point by simply stating that there is no definition that can be used with complete acceptance. I really see no problem with that as long as we know this is the case.

Comment author: byrnema 19 April 2009 06:36:33PM -1 points [-]

Rather than argue with you, I am inclined to agree, but I'm not sure what to do next. When I read a statement such as, "This isn't groupthink; we really, truly have given full consideration to theistic claims and found them to be false." I'm not sure how to interpret it. Do you (I mean, should I) read it and assign some kind of "fuzzy" meaning?

Comment author: MrHen 19 April 2009 11:38:14PM 0 points [-]

The "theistic" in that sense is probably a wider definition intentionally. If someone came forward and said, "Well, what about this? This is not technically theism; it is X," my hunch is the community will say, "Well, we reject that, too."

So, yeah, fuzzy.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit