Roland98

This doesn't appear to be much of a support issue, and due to the current nature of the discussion, I'm sending this over to GRD.

-Roland98
Secular Lifestyle Moderator

DropOut

Ashe,

The use of the word God as I've defined it ,implies all things,not merely religious things.
Incidentally,there are definitions of God in the dictionary which imply no specific religion. "Ultimate reality" and "infinate mind" are two which stand out to me.
Why do you presuppose the word God has ONLY religious implications?

ashe

Most people using the word 'God' with a capital G are using a definition associated with one of the world's leading religions. Therefore it has religious implications.

If you want to prefix every single discussion you enter with your own special little definition for 'God', then be my guest. No one can argue with you because you are providing your own definition.

Just remember that if you do provide your own definition, you can't benefit from the conclusions derived from other definitions for your word.

ashe

Once again, I must question why you specifically want to use the word "God" instead of "ultimate reality" or "infinite mind". What special luggage does the word "God" provide for you? Is it just less syllables? If so, that's cool. Call it what you want

It would be better not to use the word 'God' at all, since it is clearly suffering from a bad case of equivocation and simply state what you mean.

seebs

That's not what "religious" means.

If we want to define the term broadly, there are several directions we can go in. If we look at organized belief systems, the OP is clearly non-religious, but many atheists are religious (think UU's, or for that matter just hardline strong atheists). If we want to go with "holding beliefs unsupported by evidence", then *EVERYONE* is religious, most people vehemently so.

DropOut

Ashe,
This thread has already etablished the limitations of vocabulary,language,and human expression.
Too many times, as in the case of "secular",we must redefine or settle for words which we feel best suit our purposes.
To state what I mean by God would fill a book.Not to worry though, the book would be rejected by most theists and atheists alike.
"Luggage"? Why not "baggage"?
Perhaps,my use of the word God was influenced by the Christian dogma with which I was raised.However,considering the contempt I hold towards most organized religions(Christianity included),I think it goes deeper than that.
Ya' see, it's important for me to maintain that all roads (eventually) lead back to the same destination.I call it God.

Secular Pinoy

You have not shown that to be the case. Please be more specific and clear. Claiming the alleged "limitations of vocabulary,language,and human expression" is not enough.

DropOut

Secular Pinoy,

I have no evidence aside from my own convictions.How then, can I show anything "to be the case" ? With this in mind,
ask a specific question,and I'll try to be as specific as possible in my answer.

Secular Pinoy

You can start by substantiating your statement which I've quoted above. No need for me to ask questions, you just have to show why we should accept your statement.

2human

God? What is in a name?

Does not every tradition have their own definition of the words they use? It is even worse. some sociologists studying religions say that many of the members have inner translations when they recite the official credo of tehir tradition. Even those who have promised to be true to the dogma have their own interpretations.

Now that is maybe more telling how individualistic we are as humans.
We often have our own take on anything and God is not immune.

My take is that words mean what the users intended at writing but they changed to what the readers interpret them to mean to them.

This is why we need bettr words for secular versions of human feelings.

What the religionists see as religious feelings could be fully secualr feelings being hijacked to be religious. They have by force of numbers supporting their take on things made them to go under that label for such a long time that it is hard to see them as secualr anymore. We also have the functional aspect of words as tools for communication.

What are religionists referring to assigning or attributing "religious" or "Spiritual" or "holy" or "sacred" to feelngs that are fully human feelings by default and that by seeing them as "religious" trying to make them into a property only for blind faith in the supernatural.

I see it as relational. Words as functional tools are relational to teh group using them. It is a contextual phenomena.

Take the adjective bright. Very few would see me as bright. Bernt your not bright, maybe dim is a better word. But ask any of The Brights. They would say. To see oneslef as a Bright is up to you. If you agree with the criteria we set up then your a Bright despite everybody seeing yo uas very dim indeed.

So words have the intentional meanign the user ascribe them to have until someone reading them, then for that reader they wil lget interpreted to have teh conotation that is within reach for them.

And that is why God is such a usefull name and such a very bad name. It is useful cause the writer and reader put their own meaning to it. It is like Music. Say Music and I think of Norwegian Hardanger Fiddle and say Wow music is my thing. I love it.

You will get totally another sense for what that word refers to. Maybe yo ujust hate that organised noice coming fro myour neighbours EarBlasters. Stop that music, I can't stand it.

God is like that. We love our take o nGod or hate the others take on God. It is a tool that is for setting people apart as We against Them.

so I prefer Science-minded instead of God-minded.
Bernt who is bright enough to support The Science-minded Movement