John Page

Really! Whose god and what values? You wouldn't be refering to those defined in the constitution without need of reference to god, would you? Perhaps you would prefer additional slogans such as "apple pie", "Ford Mustang" etc.
Freedom.
Indeed, and likely as a bedfellow I understand. But then he was a Christian also, thereby amplifying the reason to leave personal mores as personal.

Cheers, John

WJ

Hi John!

Yes, I was simply talking apple pie, baseball, and chevrolet!!! And apparently so was the atheist who made his case.

One nation under 'freedom' doesn't sound very pragmatic to me(?). Free will is just a theory and doesn't in itself make problems go away. Afterall, in terms of cause and effect, everything is determined.

Thoughts?

Walrus

John Page

Hi Walrus!

You asked for a substitute word for god as a token that represented American values. The symbol of the flag is just fine anyway. Just strike "under god" from the pledge of allegiance. Freedom (liberty) is already mentioned elsewhere in the pledge.

Free will? If you take a slug out of a jar and put in the grass, the slug has freedom from the confines of the jar. No free will required.

Cheers, John

tergiversant

I suppose so, but only the first two of these (and possibly Allah) are in accord with common usage here in the U.S. I actually prefer it this way, myself, since it makes it far easier to disprove claims to the effect that "God exists."

At some point? I would think it more like, "throughout the entire formation of the the modern English language."

p.s. Are you planning on attending the festivities at UCO tomorrow evening?

-- tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org

tergiversant

Washington said no such thing.

madmax2976

<strong> How do you do that until you first ask for a definition of "God"? If you just assume the definition, you could easily be wrong. You might be debating a Wiccan and not know it.

The point being that "God" needs to be defined prior to any meaningful debate anyhow. All I would be doing is extending the degree to which the variation can go. Of course I'm not the only one. Obviously there were and are many others that define God in this manner.

But as I said in another thread (or was it this one?), we have basically 2 options. Fight against all vestiges or references of "God" in any governmental activity or statements, Or allow God to have a wide variety of interpretation, including that of a non-religioius meaning - thus including Pantheists and other like-minded folk such as Hawking who view God as the embodiment of the laws of nature.

Most atheists seem to wish to fight. I just hope it proves to be the most advantageous way to go. I have my doubts.

<strong> Certainly. As I said, we sat back and allowed this definition to take precedence. We don't have to and I think we shouldn't. It allows Christians in particular too many presumptions. Their God is "Yahweh", the warlike, tribal deity of an ancient race of Hebrews. If they want to prove this Yahweh is "God", let em try.

<strong> We had thought about it, but we changed our minds and now plan to go to Frontier City to see what kind of a show they put on.

tergiversant

The problem as I see it is that "God" already carries the meaning "Jehovah" for most people (especially religious devotees) in our culture. If we allow the broadening of the term to cover any religion (or none) then we give Christians a fine excuse to keep "God" firmly fixed in the public rituals (e.g. Pledge, motto, ceremonial invocations, etc.) while all the while they equivocate on the meaning and revert to the Hebrew god whenever they get the chance. Citizens of minority religions (who name their gods differently) and those of no religion whatsoever will thus be marginalized in mainstream society which (equivocally) honors the Hebrew god at well-nigh every opportunity.

madmax2976

Well this I disagree with - it references my whole point. Its true that they will always interpret the word as the biblical God Yahweh, but thats fully expected and just fine. I want them to understand neither you, nor I, nor a great many others interpret it that way. Nor do we have to interpret it that way until such time as they prove that we should.

We could drive home the point as succinctly as possible, that their definition is not superior to anyone else's. People would be just as justified in viewing "God" as the Goddess of Wiccanism, or as some pantheists do, Nature itself. Obviously their not going to appreciate such definitions, but too damn bad.

I think there are many benefits that could be derived from a wide plurality of thought in what "God" means. One particular benefit might be in knocking those arrogant believers from their presumed pedestals. Exposure to other definitions could very well do that. If they rail against Vishnu, Allah, or the Goddess, we can point out that their Yahweh is nothing unique.

<strong> Yes, precisely the current state of affairs.

sbaii

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tergiversant:
[The problem as I see it is that "God" already carries the meaning "Jehovah" for most people (especially religious devotees) in our culture. ]


Maybe someone could devise an appropriate phrase that use GOD as an acronym.

John Page

[quote]Originally posted by sbaii:
<strong>Grand Old Democrat