madmax2976

This issue has arisen mostly because of the whole Pledge of Allegiance bru haha, but I wanted to see what others thought about it.

I've argued in the other Pledge of Allegiance thread, that we have allowed others, particularly Christians, to steal the word "God" and treat it as their own. However, I am challenging this state of affairs. I am arguing that is NOT for them (or anyone) to define this word for all people, and that we should not allow them to continue doing so.

Many atheists do point this out in the course of debates, however I want to drive the point home and make them even more cognizant of it. I think this tactic can do that.

"God" can be Yahweh, Jehovah, Odin, Vishnu, Zeus, Rama, Allah, the Great Spirit, the Great Gazoo, the IPU, or, as in my interpretation, Nature itself - all that there is. At some point, Christians were allowed to influence the definition of "God", at least in the USofA, such that many of us automatically assume the religious, Judeo-Christian deity found in the bible whenever we hear the term. Hence the content of the many replies on the Pledge issue that have assumed just that.

I believe this allows them way too much lee way and the implication that their God is "the" God whenever the issue is discussed or debated.

By allowing Christians to impose the definition of God to be the Christian bible God Yahweh, we implicitly allow them far more power and authority than they deserve or have. Their deity is the warlike, tribal deity of an ancient nomadic tribe of sheep herders called Yahweh or Jehovah - nothing more. It is not the God of everyone else who is not a Christian.

I think if we refuse to any longer endorse or implicity condone the Christian theft of the term "God" to automatically mean their God, Yahweh, this whole mess about "under God", "In God We Trust", "God save this honorable court", etc. could all go away. They could interpret it as they wish and the rest of us could interpret it as we wish, including in a non-religious sense.

Stephen Hawking replied when he was asked if he believe in God, "Yes, If God is the embodiment of the laws of nature". This is a completely non-religious, and justified interpretation of the term "God". Just as justified as the Christian interpretation, and I would say, much more so.

I think it would also have important repercussions in other debates as well. It would send a message to Christians and any others, that whatever they hold to be their God is nothing special - until such time as they demonstrate that it is. Their deity is Yahweh or Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews which they have adopted. If they wish to claim it is more than that - then they must argue for it.

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

madmax2976

Could a moderator fix the title of this thread? It got messed up somehow and I'm not sure how to fix it.

It should read "Take back "God" from the Christians!"

Totalitarianist

Hit the "edit" button.

madmax2976

Tried that. No place to edit the title that I can see.

Jobar

Fixed. But you should be able to do that to any thread you start, just by clicking the edit icon at the top of the original post.

I agree that monotheists have rather preempted the word 'God', particularly here in the US- likewise with the word 'religion', to the point that some deny Buddhism or Confucianism can be a religion because it does not contain a god-concept.

However- the growth and mutation of a language is a rather democratic process. Look at how dictionaries are made- examples of a word being used in various sentences are copied out, and from those definitions are extracted. "Common usage" is where meanings come from!

Another problem with 'God' is that it must always be defined with other words. It has no operational definition- you can't point to something, and say "God!" In fact, the famous philosopher Paul Kurtz calls himself an 'igtheist'- he says he is *ig*norant of what theism means. In other words, there is no agreed-upon, non-contradictory definition.

I rather hope that Copernicus sees this- he's a professional linguist and specialist in communication, and I feel sure he can add to the topic.

copernicus

I'm not sure that we need a linguist here, but I would certainly classify myself as an "igtheist" most of the time. It is only when I get a good solid definition that I tend to feel comfortable with the label "atheist". Hawking's statement was something more along the lines that Jobar might accept--a pantheistic concept of "God".

I see the current fiasco over the pledge in somewhat different terms. I believe that most Americans don't really intend to exclude other religions. What offends them is the idea of having no religion. The reason that "In God We Trust" was put on our money after the Civil War was to send the message to future generations that the Union was not a "heathen nation"--i.e. not a nation of people who rejected theism. The reason that "under God" was added to the pledge was that politicians during the McCarthy era wanted to contrast the US with Communist "atheism". So these little language games are really aimed at those of us who reject religion, not those who practice other religions. It is a direct attempt to exclude atheists and agnostics from equal status as citizens. I believe that a lot of Americans, albeit not necessarily the majority, have convinced themselves that discrimination against irreligious people is completely legal under the Constitution. It ought not to be, but the Supreme Court represents a kind of on-going "mini-Constitutional Convention" that can impose any interpretation they like on our legal system.

I'm not so worried about the current brouhaha, which is showing signs of dying down. I am really worried that Bush will succeed in packing the courts with people who will make life difficult for atheists and agnostics--at least, for the rest of my life. I don't believe that he can do anything to destroy secularism in the long run. We may be behind Europe in this respect, but I think that time is on the side of those who reject religion. God only exists to explain phenomena that we are too ignorant to explain otherwise, and the historical trend has been to shrink the number of things that theism "explains". I think that future generations will come to see this trend as demonstrating the implausibility of theism as an explanation of anything at all. But, for the remainder of my life, I am resigned to the fact that I live in a country which really doesn't like me for what I believe (or disbelieve). Americans do not, as a whole, embrace the egalitarian principles which our nation was founded on.

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: copernicus ]</p>

madmax2976

Yes, exactly. I believe Einstien had simliar leanings.

<strong> Perhaps. Although I suspect if you asked many of them, they wouldn't agree on what is or is not a "religion". Many even call humanism and atheism religions. Yet another definition that they are attempting to coerce everyone into.

<strong> This may be, and we could take the opportunity to educate them otherwise. They've defined "God" to be the biblical deity Yahweh. We can define it to be Nature - all that there is. We can drive home the point that we don't accept their automatic assumption that its the biblical deity or any personal, intelligent deity at all.

<strong> This may be as well. Then lets define the word to be compatible to our own thinking and point out that they do no own "God". We are as free to define it as they are. There's nothing they can point to to tell us we are wrong in doing so.

<strong> Quite right. Those 9 people can usurp a lot of power depending on how they think the constitution should be interpreted. I looking for a way to keep them out of it as I don't really trust them.

<strong> To some degree perhaps. I'm not sure how much more he could do than already exists. Its really a public perception thing.

<strong> Without getting into what "religion" means, I suspect your right. Its happening slowly, but it is happening.

<strong> Actually I think they do. But their fear of us outweighs those principles. They're afraid we may be right and that scares them more than the bending of a few principles.

IgnorantBliss

What a wonderful little discussion. Yes, it is the history of these additions to the pledge and our currency that, in my mind, make them a contradiction to the separation of church and state. Plus, I'm pretty sure officially changing the meaning of words like "god" or "religion" would be more or less pointless... as pointed out, its the common usage of a word that makes it mean what it means... when was the last time you heard someone refer to being happy as being "gay"?

"The American government is in no way founded upon Chrstian doctrine."
-George Washington

John Page

Yeeehar!

Here's a link to my <a href="http://www.reconciliationism.org/model_creed.htm" target="_blank">God of Entropy</a> idea. Seems a mite whacky now I reread it but the idea was essentially the same, reclaim the general concept of god. God is an idea, many things to many people. My bet is that defining the god idea to include all variations on a monotheistic god unites rather than divides.

I think one might find support even within the religious establishments, see slacker's
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000414" target="_blank">Bishop Spong Thread</a>. There was also a bishop in England who came out and said there's no real evidence for the resurrection etc. but I forget which one.

So, the God of Entropy is the god of the atheists, the one true god concept that yes, we do have ideas and god is one of them.

Comments?
Cheers, Saint John of Increasing Entropy

WJ

Coper!

I think for atheism to be succesful in this battle, they must prove their case by demonstration that 'God values' do not exist in America. To that end, I thought 'pragmatism' was that which our nation's value system (methodology)was founded upon. And as such, 'God values' would be consistent with this same methodology (belief in 'appropriate' values).

So instead of the usual default position, atheism, to win this battle, (fortunately or unfortunately) will need to make positive claims about why the 'Christian' God or any other concept of God is 'innapropriate' in the development of human value systems in America. Otherwise, it's 'my belief against your belief', and in this case, the majority rules. So the burden is on the atheist in face of value systems, to demonstrate why the majority is wrong. As it's been my understanding the plantif apparently was only arguing at the 'religious belief' level.

I believe the topic germain to successfully arguing atheism/removing the concept God from government is relative to endorsement of basic value systems in a society. And that was pointed out in the opposition to communism as you so well pointed out. Is ther one word that captures this endorsement better?

BTW, I don't agree with Washington. Wasn't he the one who thought slavery was acceptable?

Walrus