references to God

[Elijah John]

I notice it seems to be the habit of many atheists and agnostics here on these forums to refer to God as "it".

And I think I understand the motivation, in that such references are most probably a desire to remain gender neutral, because a lot of folks are uncomfortable with calling God "He" or referring to Him in masculine terms. Fair enough.

But most of us Theists know that the masculine pronoun is due to the limitations of the English language, and some of us realize that such usage may be unneccesarily anthropromorphic to some who doubt the very existance of God.

But is the word "it" any better when referring to God?

Many theologians consider the word "it" to be limiting as well, in reference to God. And many of them say that God is no THING. "It" implies a "thing".

What I am trying to say, for those non-believers who also want to treat the subject of theism with respect and in the interest of civility, would you consider humoring us Theists by using the pronouns "He" when referring to God, or "She" if referring to a Goddess?

The word "it" in reference to God sounds demeaning and disrespectful to us believers. Obviously if one just does not care, one may consider my request unreasonable. And no one is questioning your RIGHT to call God "it".

But on the other hand, many who are quick to embrace the latest politically correct terminology from the Left will use whatever phrase is requested or dictated to them, newly fashionable acronyms such as "LGBT", or not LGBTQ" rights, instead of simply the old fashioned "gay rights" without a second thought.

So why not show us Theists the same respect, even if you do not respect our beliefs?
The "why or why not" is the question for debate, and is this request in and of itself yet another attempt of a Theist to control behavior?

If so, why do you accept control of speech from the political Left, but not from a politically neutral perspective in matters of Spiritual terminology? Is there a double standard here?

Or what may be some alternatives that every one could be happy with?

Believe me, we get it, if you were to call God "He" we would not think all of a sudden you converted or changed your fundamental world view. We would just consider it a sign of respect.

[Haven]

.
Out of respect for the thoughtful, considerate Theistic debaters (only) I will henceforth capitalize the word "God" when referring to the biblical God " and invite others to do likewise.


Z

Why? Why should I give the Biblical god any more respect than Zeus, Thor, Gu, or any of the thousands of other gods I don't believe in?

I don't see how it's disrespectful to believers to treat their gods the same way that I treat other gods.

[Zzyzx]

.

Out of respect for the thoughtful, considerate Theistic debaters (only) I will henceforth capitalize the word "God" when referring to the biblical God " and invite others to do likewise.

Why? Why should I give the Biblical god any more respect than Zeus, Thor, Gu, or any of the thousands of other gods I don't believe in?

Notice that 1) I extended an invitation not a request, 2) I specified that my respect was directed to "thoughtful, considerate Theistic debaters" " NOT to a god.

I don't see how it's disrespectful to believers to treat their gods the same way that I treat other gods.

It is not uncommon to decline an invitation. There is no pressure nor even a request.

[dianaiad]

.
Out of respect for the thoughtful, considerate Theistic debaters (only) I will henceforth capitalize the word "God" when referring to the biblical God " and invite others to do likewise.


Z

Why? Why should I give the Biblical god any more respect than Zeus, Thor, Gu, or any of the thousands of other gods I don't believe in?

I don't see how it's disrespectful to believers to treat their gods the same way that I treat other gods.

Would you really be as disrespectful of Zeus to a believer in Zeus as you are to the god Christians believe in, to Christians?

Why?

It's no skin off your nose to be polite.

It's up to you, of course. However, if you would like to talk to someone as an equal; a fellow human being with a brain, rather than setting yourself up as someone who obviously disdains people who have beliefs that differ from yours and thinks the other person isn't worth an ounce of common courtesy and consideration, I suggest that you refer to the believers' object of worship with the preferred terms. Within reason.

However, if you refuse to do this, I predict many contentious and unproductive conversations in your future.

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 59 by dianaiad]Yes, I understand that.
It was the generalisation I was questioning, not the folksiness of the term. The deliberate use of the plural makes the generalisation explicit.
(Or were you intending to be extra-respectful to Ooberman, like a French person using vous instead of tu, or a German Sie instead of Du?

[Haven]

However, if you would like to talk to someone as an equal; a fellow human being with a brain, rather than setting yourself up as someone who obviously disdains people who have beliefs that differ from yours and thinks the other person isn't worth an ounce of common courtesy and consideration, I suggest that you refer to the believers' object of worship with the preferred terms. Within reason.

Criticism is not disrespect. I can respect Christians (and other believers) as fellow human beings while affording their beliefs no special deference and even -- in some cases -- criticizing said beliefs. As a non-theist, I don't believe in Christianity or the Christian god, so I don't hold those beliefs sacred or immune from criticism.

It's not like I go out of my way to mock or disrespect Christianity's deity or tenets, but I'm not going to use any special reverent language when referring to the Christian god that I wouldn't use when talking about other gods. I wouldn't speak of the God Zeus, so why would I speak of the God Yahweh? Using the small "g" (and the small "h" in "he") is the politically neutral position, capitalizing them presents a pro-Christianity view.

Is the use of the small "g" and small "h" by a non-Christian really that offensive to believers?

[Haven]

For one thing, I am annoyed by the modern insistence upon using 'he or she' when referring to someone whose sex is not known. What's the matter with the old fashioned 'he?"

It is sexist and patriarchal when applied to mixed groups. It implies that males are superior to females, and so should take precedence in mixed groups.

It refers to both sexes when the identity of the person is not known.

That usage is sexist and misogynistic. It implies that male is the default and female is the variant.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 59 by dianaiad]Yes, I understand that.
It was the generalisation I was questioning, not the folksiness of the term. The deliberate use of the plural makes the generalisation explicit.
(Or were you intending to be extra-respectful to Ooberman, like a French person using vous instead of tu, or a German Sie instead of Du?

I was attempting to avoid being told I was insulting him personally by using 'you,' since he made it quite clear in one of his posts that he didn't appreciate the use of that language.

I find it quite a minefield with this sort of thing...and in an interesting, vaguely (or not so vaguely) ironic thing to come up in this particular thread. Isn't it interesting that folks who are so determined to use language/names that theists may find rude because they don't believe in that particular deity, or any deity at all, feel quite justified in criticizing the use of perfectly grammatically correct English to refer to them...especially when English really doesn't offer an alternative?

At least I'm attempting to abide by the wishes of those to whom I write. When possible.

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 67 by dianaiad]
Fair enough Di. Understood, and (broadly) agreed.

[Clownboat]

You have distorted my position it seems:

You said:

Just wonderin' should we also try to placate the political left (or right for that matter) and bow to their dictated speech codes? I want to see how consistent you are in your objections to being dictated to.

I was very clear about why your "check for consistency" was ridiculous.

It's as if you are arguing to add Big Foot to the endangered species list.
Should we not have evidence of Big Foot before we start imposing others on its behalf?

Not calling Black People (is this even politically correct anymore?) a certain N word would be like arguing to protect the Bald Eagle.
Not capitalizing a god concept would be like arguing to protect Big Foot.

To compare Eagles and Big Foot is ridiculous.
To compare (pick a minority group) to a god also seems ridiculous.

This is my point and why I clearly stated that I believe your "check for consistency" is ridiculous. Feel free to change my mind if you are able, but my point remains until you do I believe.

OK. let's see if I have this right:

Because you do not believe in a god, you feel free to refer to the concept of that god in any method you wish, whether the believers in it find that offensive or not. You do not feel obligated to show respect for a concept that you not only do not believe exists, but probably, and rather vehemently, believe does not exist.

I wonder if you feel the same way about scientists who battle over competing, contradictory theories? I know that some did...the 'big bang' theory was not named that by someone who liked the idea, after all. However, most of the time people, out of common courtesy and in order to keep from derailing the topic, use the preferred language, if only to keep extraneous stuff from interfering with the important discussion at hand.

You don't believe in a deity. Fine. So no matter what you say, or how you refer to Deity, you aren't showing either respect or disrespect to the deity, are you? How can you? If the deity doesn't exist, then deity can't be offended. You are, at the bottom, only showing disrespect to the believers. In your worldview, after all, there's nobody (and Nobody) around to listen to you mouth off.

Now the BELIEVER might honestly think that you are showing disrespect to God, and be upset with that, because the believer thinks there is One to care about stuff like that. However, you don't think so...so there is only one target for your disrespect; the believer.

It doesn't matter whether the believer can prove, to your satisfaction, that God exists. It only matters what you think....and you think that one doesn't. Therefore you are insulting the believer in a way that is impolite; deliberately so.

it also derails the subject.

Now me, I believe in a specific version of God, a very specific version of Him. I figure that those who deliberately show disrespect for me by referring to Him in demeaning terms are, frankly, not a bit interested in honest conversation, let alone debate.

Because of that, I will, even though I don't believe in other theistic systems, use the terminology the believers do, if only to avoid long drawn out conversations like THIS one.

My point of contention is his claim for a "check for consistency".
I have explained why I feel his "check for consistency" is ridiculous.

You have taken my contention about his "check for consistency" and made it personal about me.

- Because you do not believe in a god, you feel free...
- You do not feel obligated to show respect...
- I wonder if you feel the same way about scientists...
- You don't believe in a deity...
- you aren't showing either respect or disrespect...
- You are, at the bottom, only showing disrespect to the believers.
- to listen to you mouth off
- However, you don't think so...so there is only one target for your disrespect
- Therefore you are insulting the believer...

Do you have anything to say about my actual point of contention, that I disagree with his "check for consistency", or would you prefer to derail and make this personal?

I have addressed his "check for consistency". I have yet to give my opinion about capitalization specifically (though I'm sure you can extrapolate some of my feelings from what I have said).

Are the reptilians that some people believe are running the country next on the list to be protected? I would sure hate to hurt the feelings of these reptilians. I would suggest we don't legislate speech against things that cannot be shown to be real. Anyone is free to disagree.

There are questions about if gods are real, or if Big Foot is real and so on.
There is no question about if (name a minority group) are real and can be affected by disrespectful speech. Thus to compare the two groups to "check for consistency does not seem logical IMO.

The question, Clownboat, is about the perceptions involved.

I perceive that ideas are different from human beings, thus using the two together, then claiming "doing it for consistency" is illogical.

[dianaiad]

I perceive that ideas are different from human beings, thus using the two together, then claiming "doing it for consistency" is illogical.

Clownboat, the whole thing is either about ideas, or people, because only people can have ideas.

As far as I can tell, the only difference between non-believers who deliberately use dismissive and insulting words to describe the deity of the believer they are talking to....and the folks who use insulting language to refer to gays, or Jews, or Poles, or anybody you like, is who believes what.

Or, to be more clear:

Insulting gays is wrong, according to you, because you support them and see nothing wrong with their lifestyles or beliefs, and because you really don't like and disapprove of those who use that insulting langauge.

Insulting the deity of believers, on the other hand, is perfectly fine by you because you don't like the believers, the idea of the deity they worship, and think you are correct in your opinions about both.

Here's a question: this makes you different from the pulpit pounding, hellfire and brimstone revival preacher who tells you that you are going to hell because you don't swallow his specific idea of what's what, how, exactly?

Because I don't see a difference. You both think you are right, you both think you have the right to behave in any manner you wish because you think you are right, and you both think that everybody should accept the fact that you are right and simply swallow the discourtesy.

Up to you, of course, but really, I see absolutely no difference between the guy consigning you to hell because you don't believe in his stuff, and the non-believer feeling free to insult, mock and consign to the ranks of utterly worthless because they don't like his POV.

Does make conversations simple, though; everybody is so busy being insulted that no actual discussion ever goes on.