“Attached”? What do you mean by that? Sure, there can be a line between the two, but it is NOT necessarily so. As I demonstrated in my initial post.
Hmmm. First “attached” and now" particular brand of faith". Let’s use the terms we’ve been using, just so the discussion tracks: religion and God. This aactually helps you, as “faith” is more easily associated with things that are non-religious. That aside, it no more establishes a religion for us than The DofI, other government documents, and our currency.
That’s a good question. But I think by then you have a set of beliefs that get attached. I think it fair to say that religion starts there. Although it might necessarily have to, I guess.
I don’t think it’s arbitrary at all. Let’s go back to a world prior to religion of any sort:
Og: Good mastodon.
Ug: Yeh, yummy.
Og: Lot of stars tonight.
Ug: Yeah.
Og. How do you think they all got there. For that matter how dod this get here: this land, this ocean, these birds, how did we get here?
Ug: What are you talking about? It’s just here. It’s always been here.
Og: I’m not so sure. What if some super big invisible giant made it all?
Ug: You’re crazy.
Og: Maybe. But that’s what I think happened.
So, we have the world’s first theist. And no religion. No set of beliefs. Not code of conduct. No thought of what flavor of being might have done the creating. Just a man with a physical-cosmological bent who has an opinion as to where everything came from.
I don’t buy that. Assuming there is a “god”, regardless of what flavor he is, he’s pretty fucking awesome. Giving him a big G seems appropriate. And describing him as Almighty seems to make obvious sense, although a but redundant.
No set of beliefs? What about the belief that he’s super, the belief that he’s big, the belief that he’s invisible, the belief that he’s a giant, and the belief that he mare it all?
How big does a set have to be before it becomes a set?
Don’t be disingenuous. Only christianity’s diety has the proper name of “God”, and you know it.
I see one belief (the world was made by super big invisible giants) and two flavors of the beings involved in the creating (they are super big and invisible). Sounds like religion to me.
I’m tickled and encouraged that the immediate three respondents all glommed on to this. Obviously (I thought) it was just a “for example”. You know, tipped off by the “what if”.
No matter, it’s easily fixed:
NEW & IMPROVED! Now without giants of any flavor!!! And with the world’s first atheist, as well! (See last line.)
Og: Good mastodon.
Ug: Yeh, yummy.
Og: Lot of stars tonight.
Ug: Yeah.
Og. How do you think they all got there. For that matter how dod this get here: this land, this ocean, these birds, how did we get here?
Ug: What are you talking about? It’s just here. It’s always been here.
Og: I’m not so sure. What something or somebody made it all?
Ug: You’re crazy.
Og: Maybe. But that’s what I think happened.
Ug: I think you’re nuts.
Neither of these two are religious. Neither have a set of beliefs. They take two different philosophical positions: something/someone created us verses that being untrue.
I can see that not necessarily being a religious belief. But also note that your hypothetical caveman’s statement is a lot less specific than the text under discussion in this thread, which specifies a) a god, b) who is almighty, and c) who wants to protect us. Which is pretty firmly in “religious belief” territory.
You made a leap there. A small one, but a crucial one. I see nothing that says that He “wants to protect us”. Simply that we seek/desire his protection. Now, you might say that His being capable of protecting us constitutes a belief system, but I’d say that goes part and parcel to there being an Almighty God.
As far as your A and B. A: that’s what the caveman was talking about, even if the word did not exist. B: If there is a Creator God, it seems safe to characterize him as being “almighty”.
It doesn’t matter what they believe, it matters what the words say. And the words do not necessarily adjoin to any religious belief. They simply acknowledge a monotheistic belief. Just like the DofI. Just like our currency.
Oh, and whataya say you try not being a dick. And your “we’re waiting” implies both an unwillingness to wage your own battle and a group-think mentality.
What bullshit. Capital G God is the Christian god, and you know it, I know it, and everyone knows it. If you say otherwise, you are lying.
Hell, it’s “IN GOD WE TRUST”, not “IN THE GOD OR GODS OF YOUR CHOICE WE TRUST”. There’s no doubt in anyone’s mind about which god this is talking about. All bullshit equivocations aside.
That’s my battle, you lying dick. I fought it myself - and I think the group agrees with me.
It occurred to me to note, that based on this, Og isn’t a theist! Or at least, not necessarily. To be a theist you have to believe in a god or gods. Believing in “something” isn’t enough; I believe in lots of somethings, but none of them are gods.
So, does Og beleve in a god or gods, or something else? Let’s go back and check.
Ug: I think you’re nuts.
Og: No, seriously! I mean, look at the stars. Don’t they look like the sparks the fire sometimes throws up when we put a new log in?
Ug: Maybe a little, so?
Og: So maybe that’s what they are! Sparks from a fire.
Ug: That’d have to be a pretty big fire. Bigger than the sun, even. What could have started a fire that big?
Og: All fire comes from lightning, Ug, you know that.
Ug: So you’re saying that there was a big bang of lightning and that made all the stars, as sparks?
Og: Sure. The sun could be an ember off it.
Ug: What about the moon, though? It’s not an ember. Or the ground, for that matter?
Og: They could be ash from it.
Ug: Even the ground?
Og: Well, we know the ground is a big round ball from that lunar eclipse that happened a while back, remember? So it could be a big ball of ash, from a really big fire.
Ug: I dunno. Where did all the grass and stuff come from then?
Og: After a while grass grows up in old fire pits, you know that.
Ug: I’m still skeptical - this ‘Big Bang’ theory of yours sounds almost as dumb as what that other Og said.
Og: Og son of Ig? What did he say?
Ug: He said that he thought some super big invisible giant made it all.
Og: Well, that’s just nuts - if there was a big invisible giant, we’d have seen its footprints, right?
Ug: Yeah I know - it’s a crazy idea.
Og: And where would it have come from? Og came from his father Ig. I came from my father Ag. You came from your father Eg. So where would this invisible giant come from?
Ug: Actually I asked him about that, and did you know what he said? A turtle! A giant invisible turtle.
Og: Its father was a turtle?? That’s just nuts!
Ug: I know - I think he’d been eating the rotten berries again.
Og: A turtle. Wow. Where was this giant turtle supposed to come from, then?
Ug: I asked him that too. He said its father was a turtle too. It’s turtles all the way back, apparently.
Og: That’s crazy. That’s really crazy.
Ug: Hey, you’re one to talk, Mr. Giant Fire in the Sky.
Og: Shut up before I club you.
The next day, both Og and Ug were killed by Og, who said his invisible giant told him to do it. And now you know…the rest of the story.
Yeah, that’s the thing. Kentucky’s God has super powers (of some kind). We know this because Kentucky cannot survive with mere mortal endeavors, according to the text.
And Kentucky’s God has at least one specific interest – that of protecting Kentucky from those weasels in Tennessee and Iraq. Or possibly his special interest is in protecting those who adore him most, and clearly there need to be signs and stone tablets to prove that Kentuckians love God most.
I think the “wants” is pretty heavily implied by the context. But if you prefer “capable of,” that’s fine, because that makes the religious content even stronger. Clearly, whoever wrote the sign believes that it’s possible to get this God fellow to offer his protection, otherwise, why bother even taking the job, since success is impossible without God? So how does one get God to help protect Kentucky? One would assume, by doing something God likes. And that’s undeniably religious, because now you’re theorizing a set of behaviors that are necessary to win God’s favor. The sign doesn’t explicitly say what those behaviors are, but presumably, the person who made the sign knows. And I’m willing to bet that, purely by coincidence, the guy who made the sign has a lot of the same likes and dislikes as God. So if you’re in Kentucky, and you want to be protected, you’d better do what this guy (and his God) wants you to do, otherwise you’re screwed.
And that’s why we have separation of church and state.
Not at all. There is a theory of god the retired engineer, who built things and then went away. There is a theory of god as a curious scientist, who set up an experiment and sits back and passively observes.
I’ve just now created a theory of a god who can create but cannot destroy – though a god who can create things which can destroy other created things. Hey, why not? We’re all talking about gods of various plausibility.
Or, who knows, maybe god shot his wad creating the universe, and is too tired to do anything more. Or the effort killed him – it was a Mighty Big Bang, and he didn’t step far enough back.
No, Kentucky’s god is a particular god, with particular powers and inclinations. Just the idea that god would intercede to protect humans is inextricably bound to some religious concepts, and to the exclusion of others.
begbert2 For me personally, I think your usage of the word religious is bordering on absurdity and leading into meaninglessness. It says in no uncertain terms that anyone who is not an atheist or agnostic is religious. Allows for no delineation between belief from, “I guess I believe in God.” and, “I believe in the one and true messiah Jesus Christ our lord and savior.”, ie, the meaning of the word is so broad that it doesn’t really help us know what we are talking about. Though I admit that technically you can support that position by citing dictionary sources.
What’s interesting to me though is that I think atheists would have little problem accepting your definition whereas most theists and religious people (distinguished as per my definition because I am the one currently talking) wouldn’t view it as so. Obviously people who say, “I am spiritual but not religious.”, do not view it the way you do, and the very religious who view vague deists as being irreligious wouldn’t view it that way either.
I think that this might be one of those places where we find we are close to the threshold that separates belief from non-belief. On the theistic side there is ‘spiritual but not religious’, and on the atheistic side there are agnostics. I think on the theistic side the probability that someone uses my definition increases with the degree of certitude and on the atheist side those that use your definition increases with the degree of certitude.
At some point we’re going to have to play Han Solo and Chewbacca, understanding the meaning behind the way the other is using them while accepting that our vocalizations are unpronounceable by the other.
I had missed this. Simple belief in a god or God as a Creator satisfies neither 1 nor 2. Three can apply to an atheistic poet or a craftsman. Four does not include someone who simply believes in a Creator God and leaves it at that. Though it could well apply to a Red Sox fan. Which means it is meaningless for this discussion.
So, you’ve provided the definition for the word and no where does it cover someone who simply holds to monotheism (sans adherence to any particular sub religion).
It can be. But it needn’t be. A Creator God cold easily merit the same respect. But if you really beleive that, then you’re saying that the capitalized “G” here means they are talking about the Christian god?
…
:rolleyes: I guess you don’t realize how asinine that it is. Pathetic.
So, you are arguing that this is a Christian nation? That the God in both the DofI, which lays out the moral argument for the country and the God in oaths, etc., and on the currency is all in support of the Christian God exclusively. You may be able to convince me of that, but every other atheist I recall debating on these boards argues the opposite.
But just because the people who wrote it in might have had the Christian God in mind, does NOT mean that the word “God” need refer to him exclusively. It’s not as if they used something as clearly Christian as “in the Year of our Lord” used here.
You lost me with this frothing gibberish. I have no idea what battle…oooooooooooo… is “your battle”. But I asked nicely that you try not being a dick. Now I’ll have to ask that you try harder.