"Don't call what I believe crap."

Don't be so sensitive.

"All religions worship a god"

Buddhism does not.

"what if that god wasn't some human like figure, but just the essence of the universe?"

again.. vague crap that means nothing.

"Why else would life exist?"

Life exists because self replicating systems produce themselves when given the energy and resources necessary. If you are referring to some higher purpose, their might not be one.

"Random chance"

Chance is something we use to describe things we don't understand in detail. Not sure why bring this up even matters.

"If all human life believes in a god"

nope. not everyone does

"if all human life believes in a god, then that would mean that even if those gods are different, what if they are all worshiping the same thing?"

I can't tell if this is a argument or a question.

Are all definitions of "life" not arguable as it is likely to be used in an abortion debate?

Anything can be argued, but I’m putting into a question can it be a good argument.

Really, the least arguable definition of life(The sciencey one) does little to help the pro-choice side and little for the pro-life as well, but more so for the later then the former.

It really helps neither. Life in its simplest definition (for Science) would include single cells, which I’m sure you would agree do not constitute something that deserve protection.

Usually the points made by one side or the other by citing "life" are philosophical ones, or attempts at philosophical ones(if not out right emotional appeals). Its the nature of the type of debate that arguable definitions of "life" be used, since various philosophical systems are defining "Life", on both sides of the table.

Agree 100 percent. Awesome!

Do you think that some definitions based off philosophical systems should be taken as seriously? For example some state life involves an immortal soul, which has zero evidence for its existence. If they use definitions that are not tangible to nature, why should anyone take them serious? I’m not saying you say this btw, just curious on what you think.

Pretty sure ghosts defy the conservation of energy. Where do they get their energy?

and by having it added into the pledge an endorsement of a particular type of religion was granted.Which constitutes a violation of the separation of church and state.

If making reference to God (or endorsing God) in a public fashion by a government official was against the first amendment, why was it so common? By the very people who signed the document into being no less?

Doesn't matter if "people" make references. It's fine, but when you have the "government" itself endorsing God, I think it does violate the separation.

O

People should not have to acknowledge god when they pledge their allegiance. It wasn't in the original, and it simply doesn't matter if "a lot" of people believed in God at the time. How can a nation call itself Secular when it endorses God in a national pledge?