Is it hypocritical to not believe in God...

...yet still spend money? In the US at least.
That whole "in god we trust" thing.
Is it a matter of people not caring enough about their non belief? A convenient overlooking of something that'd make life impossible to live in the US?
What's everyone's take on this?

No, what's hypocritical is that we have "In god we trust" on our money whilst claiming that there is a separation between church and state.

Also, a lot of people spend money with debit cards these days. So there is a way around that, if you really cared....

Its still money you're spending, though, in the end.

And really, i'm not denying (or focusing on) the govt's hypocrisy, just asking as to the level of hypocrisy/commitment, and/or lack thereof, of athiests.

If we are going yo use those standards, then it will be hypocritical for anyone with a religion that does not belive in a Christian God to.use the money.

Or for anyone with a religion to use Facebook as it's creator has publicly said he is an Atheist.

In other words, it will be silly to pay attention to those small details. IMO

Originally posted by AbnormalButSane
No, what's hypocritical is that we have "In god we trust" on our money whilst claiming that there is a separation between church and state.

To your overall post: Silly and hypocritical arent mutually exclusive.

I pointed out atheists because they believe in no god, as opposed to religions that believe in different gods. This thread has only gotten two responses, but they've both been rather deflective.

Its really a yes or no answer, with caveats afterwards. Not caveats with no real answer.

Edit:
The above doesnt include Astner; we posted simultaneously.

My bad, Abnormal actually did say no.
Its just the caveat itself tried deflecting things onto the govt.😛

Hypocritical? I say thee, nay. However, I do find it amusing (revealing?) that we put "God" on our money.

Originally posted by riv6672
I pointed out atheists because they believe in no god, as opposed to religions that believe in different gods.

There are things that cannot be answered with a simple "yes or no" a black and white mentality forgets all the shades in between.

And I don't think an atheist will pay attention to such a minimal thing.

He might as well just look at the money and think "Poor fools"

As far as I remember Atheist do not try to shove their believes down people's throats (Well maybe the extremist ones do)

They might want a separation between church and state, and it will be logical to ask for the print on the money to change, but it will be illogical to starve to death just because they "can't" use money that says "in God We trust" when that is the only currency available in this economy.

Now IF the goverment will be kind enough to print an OPTIONAL currency that NOT says "in God We trust", then it could be consider hypocritical, also depending on how much currency is in circulation for the Atheist to use. But for an Atheist to demand an alternative currency to appease Atheist only it will be Illogical. IMO

I'm an Atheist.

I don't find it hypocritical to use money because it's the means of commerce and trade in this society. A slogan referring to a fictional character being present on the currency doesn't matter. The currency's purpose does. It's akin to me choosing not to eat McDonald's because I don't have any reason to believe in the supernatural and using that as a rationale to not eat their food because Ronald McDonald purports himself to be a magical clown. If I'm hungry and I need breakfast I'm gonna grab a McMuffin. It doesn't mean I believe in or advocate a magic clown that breakdances and talks to dancing French Fries.

Originally posted by Mindship
Hypocritical? I say thee, nay. However, I do find it amusing (revealing?) that we put "God" on our money.

👆

Originally posted by MF DELPH
I'm an Atheist.

I don't find it hypocritical to use money because it's the means of commerce and trade in this society. A slogan referring to a fictional character being present on the currency doesn't matter. The currency's purpose does. It's akin to me choosing not to eat McDonald's because I don't have any reason to believe in the supernatural and using that as a rationale to not eat their food because Ronald McDonald purports himself to be a magical clown. If I'm hungry and I need breakfast I'm gonna grab a McMuffin. It doesn't mean I believe in or advocate a magic clown that breakdances and talks to dancing French Fries.

👆

No, to the OP. For details, see what Delph said.

Riv, what would the alternative be? To spending money, that is. Like, what do you propose people do if they're against it? It seems like a silly question to ask, because the choices are literally "deal with it" or "starve and be poor."

I don't think it's hypocritical by any means for an atheist to use currency that has "In God we trust" printed on it. I mean, living in a society without using the money of said society would seem to unnecessarily complicate your life and would make it much harder to survive. Though, there are ways around it , of course. You could just use credit cards or checks for all your purchases. But then, you'd still have to to deposit some of that money into the bank in order to use them. At least you wouldn't have to walk around with it though.

edited...

Originally posted by Star428
I don't think it's hypocritical by any means for an atheist to use currency that has "In God we trust" printed on it. I mean, living in a society without using the money of said society would seem to unnecessarily complicate your life and would make it much harder to survive. Though, there are ways around it , of course. You could just use credit cards or checks for all your purchases. But then, you'd still have to to deposit some of that money into the bank in order to use them. At least you wouldn't have to walk around with it though.

This isn't a true workaround, though, because even credit cards are just representations of that currency. You HAVE to use money in some form. The only thing this would do would be to keep it out of your wallet and in a bank account. But it wouldn't actually change anything. And there are some things that require cash, even in today's world, so if you had any kind of social life, you're still not avoiding the physical money.

Obviously it's not hypocritical, so agreed there. And I don't know a single atheist who's ever really thought about it at length. I'm just truly curious if Riv sees an alternative.

Edited... nevermind.

Originally posted by riv6672
...yet still spend money? In the US at least.
That whole "in god we trust" thing.
Is it a matter of people not caring enough about their non belief? A convenient overlooking of something that'd make life impossible to live in the US?
What's everyone's take on this?

I don't understand how that could possibly be hypocritical.

Originally posted by Astner
The purpose of the separation between church and state is to prevent the government from justifying decisions through religion; not to change any non-secular slogan that makes you feel uncomfortable.

It is a government sanctioned religious slogan. And that's exactly what the separation of church and state should stop, government endorsement or persecution of Religion.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It is a government sanctioned religious slogan. And that's exactly what the separation of church and state should stop,

Originally posted by Astner
Why?

Are you asking me whether I think that the separation of church is a valuable rule? Or do you not understand why printing "In God We Trust" on the only form of government sanctioned currency violates the rule?