"The Religion thread" Part II

[Mulu]

And...? The problem is that you have to have the underlying assumption that rationality is the ideal mode of operation for that statement to have the meaning I know you ascribe to it. It's likely why the argument is ultimately unconvincing to people - because from a philosophical perspective, you're touting the equivalent of a religion.

There's nothing "religion equivalent" in wanting to remove this particular delusion from society. Notice that as an atheist, I belong to no atheist organization, I engage in no atheist ritual. "Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma." Sam Harris
Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.

It is worth noting that no one ever needs to identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines.

Man, if I listed all of my daily "falls from rationality" out on paper, the sheer weight of them might convince you that I'm borderline retarded. Hell, watch my behavior in the presence of a cute large-breasted dark-haired woman - nothing rational about some of the choices I make.

So, because you make some irrational choices, you should encourage yourself and others to make more? And there's a big difference between chasing after a cute girl and believing in Santa Claus. The girl is real.

And indeed, plenty of social research has moved us well away from the idea of the "rational choice actor." We make decisions by instinct and emotion, and we are remarkably poor predictors of our future happiness.

Or as Freud put it, “Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires.” However, homicide falls within our instinctual desires too, that doesn't mean we have to tolerate it. And the kind of choices you are talking about are day to day decisions, not well thought out positions about the cosmos and our origins. There's a big difference between choosing to have an ice cream when you're already out of shape and choosing to believe in nonexistant beings. They are orders of magnitude apart on an irrationality scale.

Also, from Freud, "It would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be."

Merely subscribing to a belief structure, even a dogmatic structure, is not the equivalent of supporting everyone under that umbrella.

Nevertheless, that is the actual effect. It creates a social and political environment where faith based policies have a good chance of being implemented, and where faith based propaganda gets airtime in the media. Darwin's theory of evolution is still referred to as "controversial" in the US mainstream media, but faith healing is not. That sends a message.

But I think in the end, your beef is not with religion or faith - whether someone chooses to be rational or irrational on their own time is irrelevant. The issue is with how religion plays out in the common sphere, how it seems basically impossible to completely divorce it from its initial social ordering role.

True, I have fewer problems with the Amish. Still, it's a failing. Since I'm on a Freud kick today, "When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a normal and wholesome life." And, "The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life."

But in continuing to focus on the "what" and "how" of religion, I think you miss the main point, which is the "why." Cold rationality is not necessarily sufficient for people.

There is nothing "cold" about rationality. Watch an episode of Cosmos with Carl Sagan sometime, and tell me if he seems "cold." Rationality is defined as sanity, btw. Look it up. This portion of the debate took place in the last religion thread.

I'm with you on the public sphere. But man, you've gotta find a new delivery mechanism - it comes off as the sort of self-aggrandizement that makes so many haughty atheists equally as intolerable as haughty holy-rollers.

There is a kinder, gentler version of the pitch for reality, but it's nowhere near as entertaining.

I'll end with Freud, "Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities. [...] If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man's evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition, as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity."

[Nekulor]

Eh, I've never been a big fan of reality anyway Mulu. I think I'll stick with my "fantasy" world and its accompanying beliefs.

Honestly, what do you have to lose believing in god? Respect from the vast minority group of atheists? Oh boy. Let me go give up my religion now so I can please the minority of people and not look foolish to them.

Religion has never interfered with anything I've done. The professor running the lab I work in is Jewish, doesn't stop him from making important discoveries in the field of virology and ribosomal mechanics. I would happily genetically engineer a new species, possibly even a dangerous one, without thinking "Oh boy, I'm going to hell for this one." You take a very combative view of religion, one that seems to make religion look like the driving force for every single evil or idiotic act since the dawn of the modern age. Does religion have a place in society? Yes. Should it be forced on people? No. However, most of us here live in free parliamentary or federalist democracies, and we have the right to believe in god if we want to.

I just can't believe that there is no greater being or force of order involved when I look at what has been learned in the biological sciences. It seems too interconnected to be produced at random. Also, no current physics theory explains the creation of energy that formed the singularity that started this universe. The existence of this universe technically violates the law of conservation of energy then, because something had to create that energy. It didn't just bleed through over time through quantum foam or some other phenomenon.

[Mulu]

Honestly, what do you have to lose believing in god?

Your sanity, as it is a delusional belief.

I just can't believe that there is no greater being or force of order involved when I look at what has been learned in the biological sciences.

Study more. Biological systems are incredibly convoluted and have unnecessary steps. That is a product of random evolution.

The existence of this universe technically violates the law of conservation of energy

Only if you require it to have an origin point. If it's "always been there" and collapses into a singularity, then explodes and expands, over and over again, conservation is preserved. But realize that all you are saying is, "we are ignorant of the formation of the Universe, or even if it formed, so it must be god." We used to be ignorant of germ theory, so diseases were caused by evil spirits. We used to be ignorant of atmospheric friction, so lightning was caused by god. We used to be ignorant of everything, so everything was the work of supernatural beings. Ignorance isn't proof of god's existence, it's just proof of our ignorance.

[AlmightyTDawg]

There's nothing "religion equivalent" in wanting to remove this particular delusion from society. Notice that as an atheist, I belong to no atheist organization, I engage in no atheist ritual. "Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma."

Actually, I beg to differ. Try coming up with a non-circular justification why one should be rational. No no, don't worry, I've got all day.

You're welcome to assert the superior predictive value of rationality and its higher utility in day-to-day functioning. But in answering fundamental questions of meaning, or in addressing the sorts of concerns that religion or better faith address, it has no obvious superiority. Seeing as there are no answers, it's difficult to come up with a heurisitc that determines a proper opinion.

And of course you're also welcome to note that to the extent that religion intersects with secular, corporeal matters, it can be demonstrated to be ineffective and underdeterminative. You can even argue metaphorically that it's more holistically and aesthetically compact (the Razor principle). That's the point on which you and I agree. But beyond that, outside of one set of people feeling superior because they don't subscribe to that primitive voodoo, and another set of people feeling superior because they have a (supposed) connection with a higher power, there really isn't any basis for a decision. One's underlying assumptions (rationality is superior, Occam's Razor is an appropriate method of theory selection) make that determination, not any concept of universal truth.

Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.

And this is the sort of self-satisfaction I'm talking about. Of course all of these things are philosophies - you just have to think a bit deeper about your underlying thought process. Nor is atheism simply a refusal to deny the obvious. I find it patently unobvious that the Spinozan/Einsteinian view of God is wrong, for example. Now, when religion is used to deny the obvious, a la the humans running with dinosaurs dioramas out there, well... not all religion or faith is so silly.

So, because you make some irrational choices, you should encourage yourself and others to make more? And there's a big difference between chasing after a cute girl and believing in Santa Claus. The girl is real.

You missed the point, which is that irrationality is not necessarily a dirty word. Irrationality that causes quantifiable harm, sure. And quantifiable harm certainly is "some nutto making everyone's life a drag trying to institute biblical/islamic law" quite obviously. Quantifiable harm is likely the degradation in cognitive abilities by equating creationism with intellectual/scientific thought for children at an impressionable age. Many of the other things, like people finding meaning or better handling what life throws at them, is not.

There is nothing "cold" about rationality. Watch an episode of Cosmos with Carl Sagan sometime, and tell me if he seems "cold." Rationality is defined as sanity, btw. Look it up. This portion of the debate took place in the last religion thread.

Contextually, you're occasionally correct. Actually, you're brutally misstating it. Rationality is the quality or condition of being rational, which, may alternately be defined either as sanity ("he's not behaving rationally") or something having to do with reason, either the capacity or exercise thereof ("it was a rational explanation of the problem," which connotes nothing about the sanity of the speaker). The latter is the more common usage of the term, and the one getting play in most of these discussions. The attempt to equate them strikes as a pretty low form of sophistry.

The same sorts of qualities that allow for a unique and personal appreciation of aesthetics may also similarly influence our predilections to certain philosophical theories or religions. Case in point, no one can rationally disprove the existence of God. You can make it the "disfavored" rational choice, but it isn't a mathematical lock.

And yes, we get it. Freud doesn't like religion. Somehow, I find the only basis by which I would change my mind on the basis of citing to Freud would be... dare I say it, irrational.

The existence of this universe technically violates the law of conservation of energy

Only if you require it to have an origin point. If it's "always been there" and collapses into a singularity, then explodes and expands, over and over again, conservation is preserved. But realize that all you are saying is, "we are ignorant of the formation of the Universe, or even if it formed, so it must be god." We used to be ignorant of germ theory, so diseases were caused by evil spirits. We used to be ignorant of atmospheric friction, so lightning was caused by god. We used to be ignorant of everything, so everything was the work of supernatural beings. Ignorance isn't proof of god's existence, it's just proof of our ignorance.

So wait, let me get this straight. You're arguing that because there may or may not be a theory in the future which explains something that may or may not be a problem, that it should be proof for the lack of existence of God? That kind of subtle shift is when an atheist argument overreaches.

See, unless there's an understanding of the universe that explicitly rules something out, arguing that it should still be proof of the lack of existence of God is taking it a step too far. Now, clearly the question of origin doesn't "prove" the existence of God. Rather, it's an attempt to meld our current understanding of the universe with a belief in a higher power in a seamless way. You can't prove he's wrong. He can't prove he's right. And this is where personal predilections/aesthetics lets you both go on your merry way.

But to argue that we're going to understand something in the future, so you must be wrong in the present, is novel to say the least.

[NickD]

Eh, I've never been a big fan of reality anyway Mulu. I think I'll stick with my "fantasy" world and its accompanying beliefs.

Honestly, what do you have to lose believing in god? Respect from the vast minority group of atheists? Oh boy. Let me go give up my religion now so I can please the minority of people and not look foolish to them.

[...]

I just can't believe that there is no greater being or force of order involved when I look at what has been learned in the biological sciences. It seems too interconnected to be produced at random. Also, no current physics theory explains the creation of energy that formed the singularity that started this universe. The existence of this universe technically violates the law of conservation of energy then, because something had to create that energy. It didn't just bleed through over time through quantum foam or some other phenomenon.

I don't have a problem with religion. I'd prefer it if you lot stopped knocking on my door and giving me pamphlets, but all in all you're welcome to believe whatever you like. However... a thousand years ago science didn't explain a whole lot of things that it does today. Does that mean God was more real back then? The fact that science does not currently explain everything is not a good argument for the existance of an all powerful being.

Also, we all evolved from smaller branches of creatures. Interconnectivity is hardly surprising.

And getting respect from your peers is not a good reason to believe in a god either.

[Rotku]

You can't prove he's wrong. He can't prove he's right. And this is where personal predilections/aesthetics lets you both go on your merry way.

Well, I know that there is a race of giant, purple space monkeys who inhabit the dark side of the moon. And FYI, it was really these space monkeys who created life on this world, through their tap dancing. See, their tap dancing has mysterious powers, which can alter the threads of reality. This also explains how it was possible for a sea to be split or a mountain to be moved, as some religions try and falsely explain. And what's particularly great about this is that there is no way to prove that they don't exist, as they can turn invisible to all forms of human detection, so therefore they must exist, until someone can prove they don't.

[NickD]

I find your beliefs to be preposterous! We here at the Church of Giant Purple Macarana Dancing Space Monkeys declare war on your heretic Church of Giant Purple Tap Dancing Space Monkeys!

[AlmightyTDawg]

And what's particularly great about this is that there is no way to prove that they don't exist, as they can turn invisible to all forms of human detection, so therefore they must exist, until someone can prove they don't. (emphasis added)

The inability to disprove something doesn't connote the correctness of a given idea. And I didn't say we aren't welcome to privately judge at our leisure - I for one am in agreement with NickD (except for the Macarena part - no divine being, let alone a reasonably self-respecting mortal, would be caught dead doing it). And my personal opinion on fundamentalists of most religions these days borders on the level of inappropriate bias.

I just think all folks should have a healthy skepticism not only to the possibility of error, but also the occasionally unimportant aspects of that error. It's not about whether something does, or doesn't exist - it's about whether one person's belief in its existence makes a difference to anyone else. Whether we adopt a policy on homosexuality due to some obscure Old Testament passage or not is a pretty big thing. In contrast, whether we are living in The Matrix(tm) or in a real universe is functionally irrelevant unless we become self-aware of the alternate reality. If someone believes that God will save him when he jumps off a cliff, well, that's a pretty important error due to a belief in God. Tragedy aside (almost no death is truly isolated of consequences to others), the chap probably did us all a favor a la the Darwin Awards.

[Joos]

I find your beliefs to be preposterous! We here at the Church of Giant Purple Macarana Dancing Space Monkeys declare war on your heretic Church of Giant Purple Tap Dancing Space Monkeys!

What a great movie it would be!

[Vaelahr]

early Christianity did steal one very important ritual from Judaism after its formation: Prayer.

Did America steal speech from Europe?

Al Sharpton said of Mormonism, "My God is better." Funny, since it looks to me like they worship the same god.

Money?

[Mulu]

Actually, I beg to differ. Try coming up with a non-circular justification why one should be rational. No no, don't worry, I've got all day.

Simple, because the Universe exists. It is real. We are real. Understanding that reality is therefore useful. Nothing circular about that.

You're welcome to assert the superior predictive value of rationality and its higher utility in day-to-day functioning. But in answering fundamental questions of meaning

There are no fundamental questions of meaning, as already addressed ad nauseum in the prior thread. Meaning is an illusion, a projection of desire.

or in addressing the sorts of concerns that religion or better faith address

What concerns do they address? The afterlife? The idea of the afterlife is wish fulfillment, it has no basis in reason. Its a munchkin's fear of permadeath, as stated in the prior thread.

Seeing as there are no answers

The answers are obvious: Nothing supernatural exists. It's the denial of that obvious fact that leads to religious thought. Atheism is a refusal to deny that obvious fact, as stated above.

But beyond that, outside of one set of people feeling superior because they don't subscribe to that primitive voodoo, and another set of people feeling superior because they have a (supposed) connection with a higher power, there really isn't any basis for a decision.

How is reality not a basis for decision? Nothing supernatural exists. Show me *one* thing that is of supernatural origin, just one. One. Okay, a half of one.

I'm still waiting. I'll always be waiting. Because nothing supernatural exists. This is the conclusion of all our reasoned introspection, all our rational investigations into the nature of humanity and the cosmos. The alternative is a belief in pre-history spirit anima, a rose by any other name. I'm right about this, which is why debating religion as an atheist is a lot like debating whether or not the world is flat. Your arguments will always fail, because you are arguing from a position of pure fallacy. Insane delusion. It's a fatal flaw in any attempt at reason, because the underlying belief is not a product of reason, not at any level, no matter how much you try to rationalize it. You can still like the belief, but it will always be nothing more than a belief in the unreal, one that cannot be reconciled with our understanding of the cosmos.

Of course all of these things are philosophies

No, he's got it right, it's simply a rejection of the supernatural, of the unreal. The only philosophical component to rejecting the supernatural is of course acceptance of reality, in other words you have to assume that this thing you call your life experience isn't just some opium dream you're about to wake up from and discover that you are actually a Greek god, or whatever. That's a pretty safe assumption to make, since without it your life isn't real.

I find it patently unobvious that the Spinozan/Einsteinian view of God is wrong, for example.

That's because you've been raised with a belief in a supernatural diety, so it seems "normal" to you, just as belief in witches and demons seemed normal to our ancestors, and denying their existence would be punishable heresy. But what you fail to appreciate, because you skipped through 90% of the debate, is that although you find it natural to believe in god, you do not find it natural to believe in the myths of non-Christian religions. Does it seem natural that Thor walked the Earth? That Shiva exists? Of course not, you weren't raised with those beliefs, so it is *obvious* to you that they aren't real.
From the outside, *all* supernatural phenomena *obviously* doesn't exist.

Now, when religion is used to deny the obvious, a la the humans running with dinosaurs dioramas out there, well... not all religion or faith is so silly.

It is to an outside observer. You are all dancing with beheaded chickens as far as I'm concerned.

You missed the point, which is that irrationality is not necessarily a dirty word.

Irrationality = insanity. Seriously, look it up in a dictionary. There is nothing irrational in desiring a trophy wife. I had one once, and I can tell you they have many benefits. Also some detriments. There is also nothing irrational about nervous behavior. You don't have to take leave of a belief in reality to trip over your words when talking to a cute girl.

Until you get your head wrapped around a proper definition of rationality and irrationality, you should probably stop using the terms.

Many of the other things, like people finding meaning or better handling what life throws at them, is not.

There is no meaning to life but what we give it, and just because denial and delusion may make dealing with bad events easier, it doesn't make you a better or more functional person.

Rationality is the quality or condition of being rational, which, may alternately be defined either as sanity ("he's not behaving rationally") or something having to do with reason, either the capacity or exercise thereof ("it was a rational explanation of the problem," which connotes nothing about the sanity of the speaker). The latter is the more common usage of the term, and the one getting play in most of these discussions. The attempt to equate them strikes as a pretty low form of sophistry.

It's called using the definition properly. Saying something rational, and thus exercising reason, absolutely does connote sanity of the speaker at that moment. Again, figure out your terminology, particularly for irrational. As a tip, irrational behavior connotes a loss of sanity, so rational behavior must therefore connote a presence of sanity.

The same sorts of qualities that allow for a unique and personal appreciation of aesthetics may also similarly influence our predilections to certain philosophical theories or religions.

Things look pretty because of our instinctive desire for symmetry and smooth surfaces, aka health, fruit and breasts. Everything past that is simply acculturated taste, perhaps irrational, but again you don't have to deny reality to like red wine or cubist paintings.

Case in point, no one can rationally disprove the existence of God. You can make it the "disfavored" rational choice, but it isn't a mathematical lock.

All I have to do is look at the origin of the belief, a pre-history ignorance of the cosmos. The concept of god does not come from reason or observation, it only comes from fear and wish fulfillment. To the extent I can prove leprauchans do not exist, so too I can prove god does not exist. Also, the Universe is mathematically proven to be due to random forces, through quantum mechanics, which is why the Spinozan Einstein railed against QM so hard for last couple of decades of his life, futiley I might add. So, in fact, you are totally incorrect, unless you assume that the intelligent designer designed the Universe to be a chaotic construct, which doesn't make much sense and certainly goes against Spinoza and most if not all religions.

Obviously, it is not possible to mathematically disprove every ridiculous idea that human imagination can come up with, but that doesn't mean it's rational or reasonable or even sane to believe in those ridiculous ideas. Belief in something without any basis in reason whatsoever is not a sane state of mind.

And yes, we get it. Freud doesn't like religion. Somehow, I find the only basis by which I would change my mind on the basis of citing to Freud would be... dare I say it, irrational.

Yeah, but he's a great writer.

So wait, let me get this straight. You're arguing that because there may or may not be a theory in the future which explains something that may or may not be a problem, that it should be proof for the lack of existence of God?

No, I'm saying exactly what I said, our ignorance of the source of something is not proof of anything other than our ignorance, and it most certainly does not support the supposition of a creator spirit as its source. That's not overreaching, that's called using logic and reason, something the religious are frequently incapable of when discussing their own religious beliefs, as you are quickly manifesting in this thread.

[AlmightyTDawg]

While accusing me of "irrationality," I'd venture to point out only that I'm taking the skeptical logician's approach to this. Maybe a bit too deconstructive for typical off-topic blathering, but the more I hear, the more this sounds like the militantly dogmatic anti-theism which is itself a new religion.

It's the inability or practitioners to understand the underlying (and of course wholly unjustifiable as anything other than a aesthetically chosen belief structure) precepts justifying it that makes it so comical.

Actually, I beg to differ. Try coming up with a non-circular justification why one should be rational. No no, don't worry, I've got all day.

Simple, because the Universe exists. It is real. We are real. Understanding that reality is therefore useful. Nothing circular about that.

I would normally say "not to be horribly pedantic," but the purpose of the exercise was to be horribly pedantic. You justified rationality with a rational argument. Thus, you fail. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts we have for him today...

[Mulu]

While accusing me of "irrationality," I'd venture to point out only that I'm taking the skeptical logician's approach to this. Maybe a bit too deconstructive for typical off-topic blathering, but the more I hear, the more this sounds like the militantly dogmatic anti-theism which is itself a new religion.

It's a common insult of the religious to call believing in reality a religion of it's own. It's not. The very definition of religion is belief in the supernatural. "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." Try again, and this time use words according to accepted definitions rather than making up new meanings for them. Aren't you learning anything in law school?

I would normally say "not to be horribly pedantic," but the purpose of the exercise was to be horribly pedantic. You justified rationality with a rational argument. Thus, you fail.

No, you said don't be circular, not don't be rational. Again, nice try, but once again you are failing to use words according to their accepted definitions.

I notice you've dodged all of my criticisms of your arguments, because of course you are arguing from an undefendable position of fallacy: Belief in that which does not exist. You know this is an argument you can't win, so you abandon the argument for tangential issues. Granted, I'm giving you the abridged version of these arguments, as the long versions were previously posted in this and the prior thread, but even against an abridged form you're failing miserably. Alara did a better job.

[Mulu]

Al Sharpton said of Mormonism, "My God is better." Funny, since it looks to me like they worship the same god.

Money?

[AlmightyTDawg]

No, I no longer see a need to rehash what's already been said. Simply put every argument you put forth suffers from the same problem, which really are fundamental epistemological issues more than anything else. Every one of your points boils down to "what you believe is a delusion," while all of my points are "what you believe is only meaningful if you accept certain premises that not everyone need accept." Regardless of whether you want to spend the time quoting, coming up with ever-more-pithy or ever-more-tasteless ways of saying so (and sometimes both).

Of course you call it "an argument you can't win" and "abandon[ing] the argument for tangential issues." But the problem is you're so wrapped up in this belief structure that you don't really recognize what the argument is about anymore. And it's most obvious when you try to "encapsulate" and miss the mark. The fallacy is not "belief in that which does not exist."

Because you can't prove that what I believe in does or doesn't exist. Quite simply, it's irrelevant whether or not a higher power does or does not exist - it's basically a belief in something unprovable. And while a preference for rationality is clearly more helpful in figuring out how to operate a car and walk to the store, it doesn't have any special value in other instances. Nor can you square with the consequences of accepting the premise that there can be an omnipotent being - even something as simple as the process of defining cosmological and quantum constants could constitute an act of creation. Horribly anthropic consequences for argument's sake, of course,

But you keep pointing to "the supernatural" as though faith requires a belief in daily quasi-natural or deity intervention. And while you're very touchy about other people calling it a "religion," you love trying to lump anyone with the faintest of spiritual beliefs in with the Pat Robertsons of the crowd.

But on the subject of touchy, you're right, when I used the term "religion" what I should have used was "a belief structure." Religion is just catchier and irritates you more, though, so I took the shorthand way out. The fact that your brand of militant atheism has the dogmatic and bellicose trappings of fundamentalism doesn't exactly make the comparison less apt, of course.

As for circularity, I did say don't be rational. Unless, of course, you believe it's not circular to justify rationality with rationality. But seeing that you apparently believe you're the only person who understands anything, let's go dig up a definition of circular reasoning: "conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises." So what exactly is your definition of the word circular? That you didn't respond in a circle? Or how about just from the definition of the word circular: "Using a premise to prove a conclusion that in turn is used to prove the premise: a circular argument." Funny thing is, while you may not find them the "accepted" definitions, it is a pretty standard fare philosophical paradox. That you'd even try to be clever about definitions of words is pretty weak.

Here's the real simple lowdown for anyone who hasn't thrown in the towel on this discussion: When someone tells you they've disproved God, and that all meaning is an illusion, they've got some serious problems with delusions of grandeur. Of course I can't prove it; just call it a good hunch.