4 ms·

From the point of the premise of America, they do :-)

gnaritas 13y ago
No, they don't; the premise of America is the Constitution and it doesn't mention God. You're thinking of the Declaration of Independence which is little more than a fuck you to England, it is not however our founding document nor does it reflect our principles which were actually hammered out by the Constitution as a that of a secular nation.
- SamReidHughes 13y ago
  Replace "God" with "self-evident." You are wrong and missing the metaphor.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    God is not equal to self evident, and I'm not wrong.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      To one using "god" as a figure of speech, "self-evident" and "god" are sufficiently equivalent for the purposes of this discussion. You can consider both concepts to imply that the subject is considered beyond question and in need of no external justification. I have no literal believe in gods, but I use the terminology semi-frequently in the manner being described.
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        The word god is in no way equivalent to self evident and if you use it as such you're simply not communicating well and likely not getting your point across to those listening. Worse, you're using a term that will turn off listeners who tire of religious nonsense being injected in conversations about important issues. There's nothing less self evident than a god, they are certainly not synonyms.
        jlgreco 13y ago
        What is "faith", if not considering something to be self evident? Something being self-evident just means that you don't care to provide any justification for it. I see no difference between it and faith. Gods are considered axiomatic by the religious just as the basic set of rights are considered axiomatic by American government literature. Self evidence does not imply "correct". Far from it. This has never before arose as a point of contention in conversation for me. You are being rather uniquely odd about it. And in case you missed it, I am not the person further up in the conversation.
        gnaritas 13y ago
        Oh I'm aware you're not the same guy. While the religious might consider it self evident, the non religious don't so your choice of wording has the opposite affect that you intend on those of us who consider it nonsense. You've taken something simple like the phrase self evident and replaced it with something provocative and not immediately apparent in meaning to the non religious. Some people consider faith a virtue, others consider it idiotic, so it seems a poor thing to introduce when you can simply and unambiguously say self evident. I am not unique in this, and it's got nothing to do with being correct or not, rather its about a poor choice in communication by choosing language that means different things to different people. To consider god a synonym for self evident is simply an absurd notion to me and I'm sure to most atheists.
        jlgreco 13y ago
        Looks like I am on the edge of being hellbanned, as a full hour later I am still unable to directly respond to your comment... Just as well, I suppose. To be explicit, I am an atheist. More to the point, I am an anti-theist atheist. I think poorly of those who believe in gods. There are very few things I think more idiotic in this world than the belief in gods of any sort. This said I understand the terminology "self-evident" and do not pretent do muddy my understanding simply because I disagree and disrespect the beliefs of the religious. Things that are considered self-evident by believers are rarely believed by non-believers. Why should they be? If a follower considers something to be self-evident that means that they are not providing any justification to non-believers. Something that is self-evident has no justification outside of itself. There is a reason atheists such as ourselves find this to be absurd and damaging when applied outside of extraordinarily limited domains. Believers in American style democracy consider certain rights to be self-evident, they provide no justification for these things. Believers of gods similarly provide absolutely no justification for their believes. Both are accurately described as "self-evident" believes, from the perspective of believers. Were they not considered such, then their believers would provide justifications.

No, they don't; the premise of America is the Constitution and it doesn't mention God. You're thinking of the Declaration of Independence which is little more than a fuck you to England, it is not however our founding document nor does it reflect our principles which were actually hammered out by the Constitution as a that of a secular nation.

SamReidHughes 13y ago
Replace "God" with "self-evident." You are wrong and missing the metaphor.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  God is not equal to self evident, and I'm not wrong.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    To one using "god" as a figure of speech, "self-evident" and "god" are sufficiently equivalent for the purposes of this discussion. You can consider both concepts to imply that the subject is considered beyond question and in need of no external justification. I have no literal believe in gods, but I use the terminology semi-frequently in the manner being described.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      The word god is in no way equivalent to self evident and if you use it as such you're simply not communicating well and likely not getting your point across to those listening. Worse, you're using a term that will turn off listeners who tire of religious nonsense being injected in conversations about important issues. There's nothing less self evident than a god, they are certainly not synonyms.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        What is "faith", if not considering something to be self evident? Something being self-evident just means that you don't care to provide any justification for it. I see no difference between it and faith. Gods are considered axiomatic by the religious just as the basic set of rights are considered axiomatic by American government literature. Self evidence does not imply "correct". Far from it. This has never before arose as a point of contention in conversation for me. You are being rather uniquely odd about it. And in case you missed it, I am not the person further up in the conversation.
        gnaritas 13y ago
        Oh I'm aware you're not the same guy. While the religious might consider it self evident, the non religious don't so your choice of wording has the opposite affect that you intend on those of us who consider it nonsense. You've taken something simple like the phrase self evident and replaced it with something provocative and not immediately apparent in meaning to the non religious. Some people consider faith a virtue, others consider it idiotic, so it seems a poor thing to introduce when you can simply and unambiguously say self evident. I am not unique in this, and it's got nothing to do with being correct or not, rather its about a poor choice in communication by choosing language that means different things to different people. To consider god a synonym for self evident is simply an absurd notion to me and I'm sure to most atheists.
        jlgreco 13y ago
        Looks like I am on the edge of being hellbanned, as a full hour later I am still unable to directly respond to your comment... Just as well, I suppose. To be explicit, I am an atheist. More to the point, I am an anti-theist atheist. I think poorly of those who believe in gods. There are very few things I think more idiotic in this world than the belief in gods of any sort. This said I understand the terminology "self-evident" and do not pretent do muddy my understanding simply because I disagree and disrespect the beliefs of the religious. Things that are considered self-evident by believers are rarely believed by non-believers. Why should they be? If a follower considers something to be self-evident that means that they are not providing any justification to non-believers. Something that is self-evident has no justification outside of itself. There is a reason atheists such as ourselves find this to be absurd and damaging when applied outside of extraordinarily limited domains. Believers in American style democracy consider certain rights to be self-evident, they provide no justification for these things. Believers of gods similarly provide absolutely no justification for their believes. Both are accurately described as "self-evident" believes, from the perspective of believers. Were they not considered such, then their believers would provide justifications.