[extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Wouldn't it save a lot of trouble if no discussion
> about "God" could get
> started without both parties first agreeing to at
> least find out what the
> other party thought the word was going to mean?
> 
> And if both parties can't agree on what the subject
> under consideration
> is, at least one of them should have the sense to
> see that its obvious that
> they are not going to be able to have a meaningful
> discussion about it
> and so refrain from trying too. 

Unfortunately, quite a few Godsters have adopted the
trick of deliberately confusing the issue like this.
"Do you believe God exists?  Yes?  Great!  Then let me
tell you all about God.  Let's start with the fact
that He requires you to look to my organization for
all moral guidance, and not to think for yourself..."

A vague God serves their purposes.  God is vague.
This may be a coincidence.

> When posting to a list like this one, when someone
> wants to talk about
> "God" they *could* say, this term may be confusing,
> so this is what *I*
> mean.   (This is just an idea which I'd assign a
> near zero probability
> of catching on :-)

Unfortunately, while that may be a good idea for very
vague terms like "God", the people who have been
trying that have been applying it to more well-defined
terms and trying to redefine them.  (See the recent
example with "atheism".)  The results often wind up
being perceived as trollish, although not always
intentionally.