>>>On Religion
>>
>>For some reason I had expected this to be accompanied by a symmetrical message titled "Off Religion".
>>
>>And no, I won't write it myself.
>
>Oh, why not.

Wrong time of year, like I said elsewhere in this thread. The Christians are currently invading all the space as if it didn't belong to all citizens equally. I'm just annoyed, and that's not a worthy reason to sharpen my... keyboard and start writing.

>The only real objection I've seen to this line of thinking is that "God" would be a bad name to choose, because of religious baggage and similar reasons.
>
>I guess it really depends on who you're talking to and about what. In many circles (hard-line atheists), God would be a poor name to choose.
>
>I've used "fundamental nature"; Einstein has called it "objective reality"; Leibniz the "sphere" of the "Monad"; the Tao has called it "the Way"; Spinoza has called it "Natura naturans"; Plato "Forms and Ideals."
>
>But in all these cases, the writer has generically also refered to the same concept as God.

Or the translator (at least in cases of Taoism and Plato) couldn't find a better way to convey the meaning... and I'd also take it that these authors were introducing a re-definition of the theistic idea.

>I'm facinated by the rage a mere mention of a word may arouse (and has admittedly aroused in me at times).

Must be that baggage you mention. And the connotations - if you use one of the above names, it's impersonal, it's The Nature, The Universe or any other such entity. When you say "a god" or "The God", everyone imagines a patriarchal figure, a women hater, a guy who feels the urge to save you from the trap he set, to tell you what you must eat and what you must never eat, how and when and with whom and under whose approval will you have sex,... and the rest of the bags, totes and packages. So yes, it does sound verrry different because it comes with too much history.