Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Mr. Bean gets it. Do you? [View all]usrname
(398 posts)16. Well, what is YOUR definition of god?
I'm an atheist because I have yet to find a definition of "god" that is well-defined. And in the case(s) of well-definedness, it's clear that there is no existence of such a being (under the definition given).
Hence for me, a mathematician, there is no god.
The second step, then, is to realize that anyone promoting any social or legal initiative based on the existence of a god is, well, unsubstantiated. No leg to stand on.
To me, there's either a religiosity component or no-religiosity component. There is no god, accept that. There is religion and there's no-religion. People who believe in a supposed god are just being religionists. People who don't bother with a god are non-religionists.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
37 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I would posit that nearly all atheists HAVE considered what the definition of God is.
progressoid
Apr 2012
#8
great! you've managed to insult both atheists AND a whole lot of believers at the same time!
unblock
Apr 2012
#10
No, the starting point *is* whether one chooses not to believe in god, period.
SemperEadem
Apr 2012
#17
It's too bad so many around here think "sound reasoning" also equates to "ridicule."
eqfan592
Apr 2012
#21
It mixes two completely different genres that have two completely different purposes
rug
Apr 2012
#36