"In God We Trust"

Post Reply New Topic

not really, just the representatives involved. and on top of that, it still violates the first amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."


"god" is an establishment of religion. especially when one considers the various religions that don't have "god" but maybe "gods" or "everything" or the non-theistic religions.

I simply don't care either way. Obviously, if it's something proactive, like attempting to teach creationism (oh I'm sorry, "intelligent design") in schools, I'll argue (and win) until I'm blue in the face. But these are just words on currency that everyone takes for granted. I never even thought seriously about it until activists brought it to my attention.

But say for argument's sake that it could be proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that god didn't exist at all (which is what we've been arguing ad infinitum). Then the statement becomes redundant, because you would be placing trust in a fictional character and would look even more stupid. If that were to happen, you may as well have 'In Mickey Mouse we trust'. Better nothing at all like 99.9% of the rest of the world.

You pagans deny or accept?

We have our own 'gods', but we don't place them in the same way that Christians and monotheists do (at least I don't). Meditation, which some of us practise too, can be prayer, but we would just ask for guidance instead of reliance on salvation etc. Maybe if 'In Gods we trust' had been printed, it may have been more suitable. But it isn't, and therefore, we have to assume they are talking about 'their' god.

Honest question and am looking for an honest answer:

What purpose is there in believing in more than one deity? If there is more than one, do they not have their own Creator?

Regardless if there are one or many, wouldn't it make sense that they would have to have a creator?

Ummmm. No. For both, I'd say it's neither here nor their.

Okay...so, it is rational that one omnipotent being to mysteriously spring into existence without a creator, but when there are more than one they require a maker? Please explain.

I prefaced the third sentence with "For both", if I may direct your attention above...

I don't understand what you meant.

if there's only one, doesn't that one also have a creator?

Exactly, this is my point.

In our sense, the creator could be ourselves. We create gods to give us guidance during meditation and through daily life. You may say 'but doesn't that make you god? impossible because god IS the creator'. The thing is, if no-one ever thought about god or anything spiritual, it would cease to be relevent, and therefore would not exist. Christians and other monotheists believe they were created by god, but who created god to create them? God cannot alway have existed, for without rational thought, there can be no concept of a higher power. Also, as I said in another post, I look to the Universe, as well as to the Earth, so therefore my creation of god in in either or both places. Heaven and hell aren't physical places, they are metaphors for states of mind.

it's an ad infinitum line of questioning with faulty logic "if x exists, it must have a creator". it astounds me to no end that christians who go about such a line of inquiry about another religion fails to see it in their own.

My point is that if we are dealing with "supernatural" beings such as deities, if there's one or many it makes no difference. There is no reason to suppose that any of them needs a creator. Existence does not imply creation, an effect does not imply a cause (except in the tautologous sense). On what premise can one base the idea that a supernatural being needs a creator, that will not be subject to the objection that it carries with it an unwarranted assumption on the nature of things which aren't even observable in the first place? The idea that God needs a creator is nonsense and it is not consistent with many conceptions of God which people (on this board no less) have tried to refute using this premise. The whole business is completely absurd.