Originally posted to Kuro5hin.
Some of the best theists in the world are athiests. Some of the worst atheists in the world are theists.
This is of course completely contradictory, unless you look at the usage of the word "God".
So much more so the case with the G-word. A Russian friend of mine once asked me, "Do you believe in God?" When I asked him to define God for me, he said, "You know what I mean! Don't play word games with me!" Honestly, I had no idea what he was talking about. God means so many things to so many different people. If I were to say yes, I might be admitting to believing that there is a Man-In-White-Beard (Dumbledore?), as the simple-folk like to talk with, or a Universal Mind that I worshipped as the paragon of existance, as the philosophical folk like to talk about, or a white light, like the new agey folk like to talk about. Or perhaps we are talking about 4 armed deities that painted themselves blue, like the Hindu. Or perhaps we are talking about some philosophical principle, or non-principle, as the Zen-nites would have us not grasp. Nonetheless, my question was viewed with extreme suspicion, and he said, "You know what I mean!".
That damn G-word has caused a lot of problems.
Probably far more problems than G-strings or G-spots.
Perhaps we should call everything that we revere as sacred "Josh". But then, I imagine Josh would aquire as many meanings as the word "God" has. "Pleifdga" is a nice candidate, but has it's problems as well.
We could abstract the process, and just call it the "Word", "Name", or "Nameless". Perhaps "Nameless" is superior to "Name" or "Word", because then we avoid the problem of thinking that the Word of God is a collection of characters on some ancient parchments. (If I'm holding a Bible, and it's the Word of God, and if the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God, then if I burn a Bible, am I burning God?) Despite interchanging of the use of the names "Word" and "Name", the connection is not caught. At least with "Nameless", nobody will think that the thing Named is a collection of characters. But then you run into the problem of the Zen-nites who will insist on the absolute profundity of a blank piece of paper, and the "I AM" fruitcakes that believe that any experience is evidence of the nameless, namely themselves.
The best two words that I've come across are "Life" and "Love". You have to watch out with "Love" though, because Love is either A) Testosterone based guitar solos that passionately pierce a woman's vagina, or B) Feminine passive crystals gently and rhythmically pulsing through the night like bells.
I think Life is my favorite. Even though we've got Biological definitions to contend with, anyone's who's got half a brain and is Alive can recognize some sort of connection with that Word, regardless of whether or not they profess to believe in something represented by one of the aforementioned G-Word definitions, call themselves Atheist, Theist, Agnostic, or whatever have you, and whether or not they went to church, engaged in spiritual meditations and retreats, and whether they are Republican or Democrat. I've left the Bioligists out of the above, because they might have a problem with it, but they're generally nice nature loving people and may have more respect for Life than most any of us.
In my heart of hearts, I like "Life Stream" more. But I probably shouldn't tell anyone that.
At any rate, if you're someone who holds something special, valuable, or sacred, no matter what you call it or adjectives you would rather use above, you're probably doing all right, at least in my book.
I'll end this post with some notes from one of my favorite authors, Samual Clemens, more commonly known as "Mark Twain". He was a rather cynical person; Saw things clearly, and had difficulty not getting depressed over what he saw. Regardless of who he was or wasn't, this is one of my favorite jewel's I've ever read by him:
If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop to ask for any man's compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far above exacting them. I would have Him as self-respecting as the better sort of man in these regards.
He would not be a merchant, a trader. He would not buy these things. He would not sell, or offer to sell, temporary benefits of the joys of eternity for the product called worship. I would have Him as dignified as the better sort of man in this regard.
He would value no love but the love born of kindnesses conferred; not that born of benevolences contracted for. Repentance in a man's heart for a wrong done would cancel and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers for forgiveness be required or desired or expected of that man.
In His Bible there would be no Unforgiveable Sin. He would recognize in Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and would place the whole responsibility where it would of right belong: upon Himself, the only Sinner.
He would not be a jealous God--a trait so small that even men despise it in each other.
He would not boast.
He would keep private Hs admirations of Himself; He would regard self-praise as unbecoming the dignity of his position.
He would not have the spirit of vengeance in His heart. Then it would not issue from His lips.
There would not be any hell--except the one we live in from the cradle to the grave.
There would not be any heaven--the kind described in the world's Bibles.
He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when he could have made him happy with the same effort and he would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy.
- Mark Twain's Notebook