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]

Following the grammar rules of standard English, I capitalize the word god when it is being used as if it were a name. For example, "Do you really think that God cares about what you eat?" However when using either the word the or a in front, then the word should not be capitalized. For example, "Do you really think that a god cares about what you eat?"

With regard to using a pronoun for a genderless god, I believe that the best practice would be to avoid the pronoun altogether. A little bit awkward, but it avoids assigning gender to God or implying that God is inanimate. "For God so loved the world, that God gave God's only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

So why not show us Theists the same respect, even if you do not respect our beliefs?

Would that show sufficient respect?

Yes, thank you, and I understand and respect your approach.

Yes, grammatically, it does get a little awkward to repeat the proper name or even the word "god" and pronouns do have their place, in spite of their limitations.

Even if one were to use the lowercase "h" for he, (or "s" for she) I think that would be an improvement over use of the word "it". Uppercase "I" as in "It", not sure that would be a solution either. (Not that you were suggesting that, just thinking out loud here.)

When speaking of the standard monotheistic god of philosophical theism, I always use she/he/it, to avoid implying a gender. When speaking of a specific god, such as Zeus or Yahweh, I use the pronoun appropriate for that god's gender (for example, for the male god Yahweh, I use "he").

"It" is the only gender-neutral pronoun in the English language, so I don't see why using it is problematic or disrespectful.

[Zzyzx]

.

...why does belief in a god warrant any more respect than a belief in 6 foot tall invisible rabbits named Harvey?

In here, because so many mods are believers and are biased.

As the newest member of the Moderator Team (and a Non-Theist) I observe:

When people feel at a disadvantage or do not fare well in debate they tend to blame Admin, Moderators, and Forum Rules

Believers often claim that Admin and Moderators are against them

Non-Believers often claim that Admin and Moderators are against them.

To this I respond -- GROW UP -- stand on your own two feet, quit looking for excuses and present sound debates. Whining and runny noses are expected in kindergarten, but not here.

It makes no difference to me what a person's theological position may be if they act inappropriately. I am "equal opportunity" in that regard.

[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.


Z

[connermt]

[Replying to post 49 by dianaiad]

What percentage of the moderating team would have to be atheist/non-believer in order to make you happy?

Be careful with what you ask...

Respecting the person with a nutty idea is not the same thing as supporting the idea.

Respect is earned. Many times, a 'nutty idea' draws in 'nutty people'. And 'nutty people' have a hard time earning respect for other 'non-nutty people'.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 43:

a. you don't have a god.

Show me you do.

Show me your god's a-sittin' there.

And that he gives him the first dang of tinker 'bout what I do or don't.

Then tell us all about how your Christian holy text declares me a fool, the likes of which ain't ever been known before.


I reject your rejection of my god just 'cause I reject your own.

"God" is a concept. A notion. It ain't anything else but cover for one's own goofy notions.

Only the god of your notions is, according to your holy texts, is that I'm a big ol' fool, and how foolish am I, that I won't respect those who won't respect or believe me.


Show us!

Show us your god is real!

Or quit carrying on about how mine ain't!

b. a great many of them ARE idiots. That doesn't mean I can't be civil and, by doing so, avoid extraneous conflicts.

'Cause don't it beat all, "The God I worship, and am so proud of, well he thinks you're a fool, and well, in worship, I'm agreeing with him, and it's just mean of you to not 'preciate us a-callin' ya that, since God himself thinks you a fool, and here I am, we'll I agree with God."


I will offer NO respect to those who consider me a fool, or who worship a god they say says I am, only they can't show he does.


Respect should never be offered to those who claim to, only they can't, won't, or don't.


Your worship of a God that considers me a fool is what causes me to lose respect for you.

"Extraneous conflicts" is, I contend, an extraneous concept, when here we are, we're discussing the concept it is, that the OP seeks to address.

Well, I did indeed make my point here, about how when people expect the 'other guy' to go first in terms of respect, nobody will give or get any.

"You're a dag-blamed fool, and I'm a good bit upset you won't offer me respect when I ask that ya disregard me calling ya a fool there to begin with."


"Those that they can't offer me respect for calling 'em a fool, well how foolish are they, that they won't first come with their hat in hand?"



I came into this planet with folks and their God calling me a fool.

And being upset I ain't proud of 'em for having done it, and here expecting me to offer 'em respect first, fore they'll bother to even think about packing me a bowl.


To the entire group of ya, who y'all think your god thinks I'm a fool, and you worship him for having said it, I propose every one of y'all spend a night out back in the outhouse, where ya can smell the stench of idiocy.


You dare defend a concept that calls me a fool simply 'cause I reject unproven, unprovable claims?

You dare expect or demand respect for worship of that concept?

Idiots.


Not idiot in that I wish to offend - but to compare concepts- and as 'idiot' relates to religious concepts that accuse me for being a fool 'cause - and don't this beat all - I ain't such a fool I'd worship something I can't tell is there to need it.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 52 by Zzyzx]

I am "equal opportunity" in that regard.

You are a minority. I'm glad you are on the MOD team. Congratulations (or, maybe not.... )

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 52 by Zzyzx]

I am "equal opportunity" in that regard.

You are a minority.

That is not true of the Moderating Team. I am in on discussions within the group and am impressed by the even-handedness of all concerned -- as well as the cross-checking that is characteristic.

Congratulations (or, maybe not.... )

Maybe condolences instead?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 57 by Zzyzx]

That is not true of the Moderating Team.

Granted, I don't visit every single thread, however, the ones I've seen MOD interaction on...? Those are very biased in one particular direction. That OR it takes numerous reports for anything to be said to certain members, OR personal issues become apparent.
Fact is, when I see certain MODs say something the opposite of what's expected, it's quite surprising.
Hopefully, you can turn the tide?

Maybe condolences instead?

HAHA that's probably a better choice of terms.
But, I suppose, only time will tell. Maybe buy some extra Tylenol or Advil....

But this isn't a thread for this discussion, so we should probably end this discussion before...well...

[dianaiad]

By contrast, I think your use of the folksy y'all, with reference to atheists, is an unwarranted generalisation, and very prone to falsification. I counsel caution.

I use "y'all" because English does not have a plural 'you.' "Y'all' comes as close as we'll ever get. Since using 'you,' got me criticized for making things 'personal,' I thought I'd try that.

.....and that's all that meant.

Until English has an equivalent pronoun equal to 'ustedes,' I guess I can't win for losing, can I?

[dianaiad]

From Post 43:

a. you don't have a god.

Show me you do.

Why?

I didn't make a claim that there was one. I simply stated that you don't have one. Or perhaps that should have been better phrased as 'you don't believe in one." Was I incorrect?

Why do I have to prove that there is one in order to acknowledge that you don't believe there is?

That makes no sense.

b. a great many of them ARE idiots. That doesn't mean I can't be civil and, by doing so, avoid extraneous conflicts.

'Cause don't it beat all, "The God I worship, and am so proud of, well he thinks you're a fool, and well, in worship, I'm agreeing with him, and it's just mean of you to not 'preciate us a-callin' ya that, since God himself thinks you a fool, and here I am, we'll I agree with God."

OK, Joey. Please show me where the God I believe in thinks you are a fool.

I will offer NO respect to those who consider me a fool, or who worship a god they say says I am, only they can't show he does.


Respect should never be offered to those who claim to, only they can't, won't, or don't.


Your worship of a God that considers me a fool is what causes me to lose respect for you.

Oh, do please go on, Joey, and continue to educate me on what my beliefs really are.

"Extraneous conflicts" is, I contend, an extraneous concept, when here we are, we're discussing the concept it is, that the OP seeks to address.

Well, I did indeed make my point here, about how when people expect the 'other guy' to go first in terms of respect, nobody will give or get any.

"You're a dag-blamed fool, and I'm a good bit upset you won't offer me respect when I ask that ya disregard me calling ya a fool there to begin with."

Interesting translation. I hope you don't mind if I disagree with it.

.....oh, and please feel free to show where I have ever called you a fool.

I think this would be the first challenge?