Re: virus: Faith (consolidation)

David McFadzean (
Fri, 30 May 1997 12:56:23 -0600

At 08:52 AM 29/05/97 -0400, John \"Dry-Roasted Army Worm\" Williams wrote:

>It'll take some more work, but I think a common definition of "God" that
>can hit the definitions of practically all major religions and older
>mythologies is:
>1) A being with greater power than humans.
>2) A being with non-trivial influence over nature.
>3) A being that influences human activity through his/her actions.
>4) A being who has either personally, or through his or her lineage,
>created the universe or imposed order upon it.

Now we are getting somewhere. I think Reed raised some good questions
about these criteria, so I'll wait for your response to his message.

>>Someone who does not believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian deity
>>is usually called an atheist. I am not making this up. You can call them
>>whatever you like of course.
>So, is this a "real" athiest, then?

Yes, these are real people.

>>> Ah! I get it. "Real" athiests don't believe this, "real" christians don't
>>> believe that, "real" men don't eat quiche. Sorry I wasted your time. I
>>> didn't realize we were talking about anything real...
>>Give me some credit or find someone else to talk to.
>I'm just a little impatient with the apparent mutability of the definition
>of "athiest" when you use it and the addition of the phrase "real" when I

If my definition seems to be changing it is only a miscommunication.

>can demonstrate evidence that there are people who lay claim to the same
>name who believe differently than you. I think you got a point off of me

Sorry, I must have missed that part. From my point of view it seemed like
you were defining atheist such that no actual living human would fit
into that category.

>already on this one, when I suggested that people who already held my
>position would agree with me? Aren't you begging, just a little bit?

Begging? I don't understand.

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus