I personally feel that humanists do a disservice to others and waste their own time attempting to deny someone else's god concept. More importantly, it targets us negatively; something we really do not need. As Paul Tillich stated, "we make our own gods." Some need them, why deny them that right?

If we really want to promote humanism, and challenge more traditional religious views, we should do so by requiring others (especially fundamentalists) to define their terms. What do they really mean when they use the term "god"? We can then bring science to bear on the issue. They will identify their "god" as the creator. We can then point out that science now demonstrates that the universe has always existed. Time is a relative and not an absolute concept. That is a better argument then attempting to retort by asking, what created god? You get to the same point philosophically, but the latter question muddies the issue. Let truth prevail. It is the humanist way of doing things. The militant atheists are just as bad. They have defined their parent's god and do not like what they find. The real problem is that their god concept is still primitive. It is not the use of the word "god" (which has multiple meanings) that they rightfully should object to. It is their primitive definition of god.

God is an almost useless term for humanists. But it does mean something to others. We can talk to others using their language. We have no right to deny them the right to look at life from their own perspective. Each person has their own right to define what is important to them.

--Lyle Simpson
President, The Humanist Foundation
Former President AHA