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.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 29 by Clownboat]

Quoting Clownboat:

"Homosexuals (for example as there are many relevant words that could be used here) are real and I can prove it to you. They are able to be hurt."
---
Please don't distort my position on this, I KNOW they are real, and not sure why you are stating the obvious. I for one, never denied their existence, and I do not even deny their human rights, and I certainly do not need you to prove their existence to me.

My objection is not to homosexuals, and people, it is to the Left's INSISTENCE that we use the latest terminology THEY deem acceptable, even if the "old" terminology is inoffensive.

And for the record, I object to some of the Right's nonsense as well. Like when they tried to call them "freedom fries" instead of "french fries" or "homicide bombers" instead of "suicide" bombers, and the use of the word "redistribution" when referring to the progressive tax code. There is enough nonsense on BOTH sides.

For instance, "gay" used to encompass all homosexuals, now according to the Left, we HAVE to use LGBT and now a Q? Where does it end, this politically correct speechifyin'?

Yet some of these same Leftists take offense at the REQUEST that we use terms of respect (not worship, or indicatons that you believe) when referring to the Deity whom we Theists believe created us all. And if not terms of respect like the capitalized "He" at least could we refrain from DISrespect, as in referring to God as "it" with a small "i".

I guess that is too much to ask, but again, it is a request and not a demand or insistence. I thought this was a topic worthy of debate and exploration, but perhaps it IS too emotionally charged.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 29 by Clownboat]

Quoting Clownboat:

"Homosexuals (for example as there are many relevant words that could be used here) are real and I can prove it to you. They are able to be hurt."
---
Please don't distort my position on this, I KNOW they are real, and not sure why you are stating the obvious. I for one, never denied their existence, and I do not even deny their human rights, and I certainly do not need you to prove their existence to me.

My objection is not to homosexuals, and people, it is to the Left's INSISTENCE that we use the latest terminology THEY deem acceptable, even if the "old" terminology is inoffensive.

And for the record, I object to some of the Right's nonsense as well. Like when they tried to call them "freedom fries" instead of "french fries" or "homicide bombers" instead of "suicide" bombers, and the use of the word "redistribution" when referring to the progressive tax code. There is enough nonsense on BOTH sides.

For instance, "gay" used to encompass all homosexuals, now according to the Left, we HAVE to use LGBT and now a Q? Where does it end, this politically correct speechifyin'?

Yet some of these same Leftists take offense at the REQUEST that we use terms of respect (not worship, or indicatons that you believe) when referring to the Deity whom we Theists believe created us all.

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.

[dianaiad]

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.

[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.

[Peter]

OK, I'm confused. This site is for debating Christianity and other nutty religious beliefs. As such, those beliefs are open for attack including criticism and disrespect. If criticism and disrespect for an individuals belief is construed as criticism and disrespect toward that individual then we have a problem and debate isn't possible.

Also, why does belief in a god warrant any more respect than a belief in 6 foot tall invisible rabbits named Harvey? Really, why is religious belief so special that it deserves respect and must be handled with kid gloves?

[Clownboat]

OK, I'm confused. This site is for debating Christianity and other nutty religious beliefs. As such, those beliefs are open for attack including criticism and disrespect. If criticism and disrespect for an individuals belief is construed as criticism and disrespect toward that individual then we have a problem and debate isn't possible.

Also, why does belief in a god warrant any more respect than a belief in 6 foot tall invisible rabbits named Harvey? Really, why is religious belief so special that it deserves respect and must be handled with kid gloves?

My hypothesis would be because god beliefs are held in a persons mind. To attack a god belief is like attacking the believer from the believers POV.

Personally, I have no issue separating the belief from the believer. If only the believers were as capable of such separation. Perhaps then we would be allowed to draw a picture of the god of Islam.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 34 by Clownboat]

So let me get this staight, even if one believes in human rights for homosexuals, but does not use the proper (as defined by the Left) verbiage, in this case, LGBTQ, then one is disrespectful and hurtful to homosexuals? To refer to them as simply "gay" or as "homosexual" do you really equate that as disrespectful speech?

(by the way, spellcheck does not recognize the acronym, "LGBTQ)

Is this what you are saying?

And you seem to be saying that it is OK for the Left to insist on what we call various minority groups, because they are real,

But it is not OK for Theists to REQUEST terms of respect, or at least avoidance of terms of DISrespect, because supposedly the Deity is NOT real?

Does it matter that believers are real? Or is it OK to offend them, but not the other groups.

[dianaiad]

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. Now, those who honestly feel (and don't count me among those, please) that gays, lesbians, transgender and other differently oriented folks are doing what they do because they choose to, and they could quite easily refrain from doing whatever. Their lifestyle is a choice, in other words; no more 'real' in the sense that, say, native American tribe are real than your opinion of Bigfoot or God.

Would their opinion justify their use of demeaning terms, making them perfectly acceptable in 'polite' company? After all, whether you like this or not, your opinion regarding the existence of God is your opinion, not a proven fact.

Never mind how wedded you are to that opinion, or how justified you believe you are in it, it's still your opinion, not the sort of fact that I run into when I stub my toe on that bottom step. Again.

The 'consistency' thing is about perception: if it is acceptable for you to use terms that believers find demeaning to God (and therefore, whether God is or not, definitely demeaning to THEM) because you feel justified in your opinion of God's non-existence, why isn't it acceptable for those who oppose, say, gay marriage...to use terms that demean THAT idea (and yes, also demean the people supporting it?)

I see no difference.

Or rather, the only real difference I see is that on the one hand, since you support the gay rights group, you support their objections to demeaning language, but since you think theists are all wet, you don't see a need to treat them with similar courtesy. You claim that because gays are 'real,' that one should treat them with the respect due the 'real.'

Well, so are theists 'real,' and they deserve respect too...at least the minimum required to keep the conversation going.

Whereas, I, personally, think that (unless things get ridiculous, and we can pretty much all tell when that happens) one should use the terms that are requested by the folks who believe, or support a position, if only because doing so removes a completely unnecessary and utterly stupid bone of contention from the debate.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 33:

...
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.

...

If only so many folks wouldn't promote a [strike]God[/strike] [insert]concept[/insert] who defames and belittles any who reject 'em, this'd be fine advice.

Only it is, that when it's the written, holy text, unchangable, and unchanging, then those who revere these words should be willing to accept the very derision and contempt their [strike]God[/strike] [insert]concept[/insert] spews t'wards others.

Any [strike]God[/strike] [insert]concept[/insert] that would destroy my eternal life on him not being happy I paid two girls to snort coke off their bellies, after I took 'em across county lines, and liquored 'em up first, and of course they were blondes, so there was coke, and I just give 'em my wallet right there, just to watch 'em do it, well me and him probably wouldn't get along fishing from the same lake anyway.


Why is that those who demand respect, are always runnin' so low of it? Don't they sell it at any of the women's shops? I ain't seen it sold at Bass Pro, and I make me a monthly pilgrimage, whether I was a-headin' there or not.

[dianaiad]

From Post 33:

...
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.

...

If only so many folks wouldn't promote a [strike]God[/strike] [insert]concept[/insert] who defames and belittles any who reject 'em, this'd be fine advice.

Only it is, that when it's the written, holy text, unchangable, and unchanging, then those who revere these words should be willing to accept the very derision and contempt their [strike]God[/strike] [insert]concept[/insert] spews t'wards others.

Any [strike]God[/strike] [insert]concept[/insert] that would destroy my eternal life on him not being happy I paid two girls to snort coke off their bellies, after I took 'em across county lines, and liquored 'em up first, and of course they were blondes, so there was coke, and I just give 'em my wallet right there, just to watch 'em do it, well me and him probably wouldn't get along fishing from the same lake anyway.


Why is that those who demand respect, are always runnin' so low of it? Don't they sell it at any of the women's shops? I ain't seen it sold at Bass Pro, and I make me a monthly pilgrimage, whether I was a-headin' there or not.

Odd. I thought the 'eye for an eye' was one of those concepts that made the OT so objectionable? Ghandhi, who came as close to being an atheist as one can without actually BEING one (more an 'ignostic' as described by those here on the forum, claiming that god is beyond human comprehension, or that there really is no one, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-everything, deity) is credited with saying that the 'tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye' concept would leave everybody blind and toothless. I don't think he actually said that, but he lived his life as if he had.

The point is, Joey, that respect has to start somewhere, and if everybody insists that it start with the other guy, nobody will receive, or offer, any.

As for me, I figure it's just not that hard. Use the terminology preferred by the folks involved whenever possible. Show respect to others whether or not you get it back.

It will please some, astound others, and save the controversy for the things that are truly important stuff: in this case, that 'important stuff' would be the existence of deity (not what you call Him or Her) and what the beliefs are.