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 86 by Ooberman]

How many times did I emphasize the word "REQUEST" and "SUGGEST" in reference to the subject at hand as opposed to words like "demand" or "insist"?

Please stop distorting our positions. I never made a demand on this thread, and I do not remember Diana doing so either.

And if you want to talk about intolerance, how about the case of Brendan Eich former ceo of Mozilla untlil in the words of Howard Kurtz he:

"was pushed out of the company that makes the Firefox browser after a week in the top job because he contributed $1,000 to Californias Prop 8 back in 2008. He has not spoken of gays in disparaging terms or made his workplace unfriendly to gays. He simply supported the position backed by Barack Obama until the spring of 2012: that marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Intolerance from the LGBT community and their supporters sometimes has very real consequences as well, beyond mere "hurt feelings".

In this day and age, if one does not hold the "politically correct" view on gay marraige, one sometimes risks one's very livelihood by being hounded out of one's position.

Seems there is enough intolerance to go around.

---

And regarding the request I put forward in the OP, I make the same request of Theists too. One preacher recently said "we need to follow the Holy Spirit wherever it leads."

I wish the preacher had used the pronoun "He" but am not offended by his usage because I know in that case there was no disrespect intended. But I do think it is ironic that those who consider the Holy Spirit a PERSON of the Trinity, do not speak of Him as a person, grammatically, at least.

[Ooberman]

In this day and age, if one does not hold the "politically correct" view on gay marraige, one sometimes risks one's very livelihood by being hounded out of one's position.

Right. "In this day and age" we are enlightened and have the proper moral authority to demand bigots dont impinge on the rights of otherwise good people.

I will remind you the the Bible's original stance was to kill gays. Christians have a long history of killing people they dont like, and they even celebrate their hero who promises to come back and punish the people he doesnt like.

So, before you get high and mighty, how about you conider the religion you are representing.

And regarding the request I put forward in the OP, I make the same request of Theists too. One preacher recently said "we need to follow the Holy Spirit wherever it leads."

The holy spirit led Moses to commit genocide and Andrea Yates to kill her children. The holy spirit is another word for "conscience", except its anthropomorphized as primitive superstitious people are prone to do.

I wish the preacher had used the pronoun "He" but am not offended by his usage because I know in that case there was no disrespect intended. But I do think it is ironic that those who consider the Holy Spirit a PERSON of the Trinity, do not speak of Him as a person, grammatically, at least.

it sounds like you just want your beliefs to be respected. They arent. Most people on this planet do not respect other peoples superstitions. I certainly dont respect anyone who lies to children, which is what religions do.

This discussion is the same as Xians asking that everyone spell their religion the way they like, or capitalizing jesus. Its an attempt to lie: to get people to say what they dont mean, but it makes Xians feel better because it gives the apperance of nonbelivers respecting thier religion.

But its a lie.

Its the same as asking racists to say "African-American" when they really mean to say "nigger". It's not what they mean.

However, we had the moral authority to force racists (not through violence, but cajoling, ridicule and polite request) to change their behavior. It's blatant social engineering, but for a Moral reason.

What I hear when I hear a request to "respect" your religious views by having me say something I don't mean, I recognize it for what it is: social engineering. You want us to respect GOD, and one way of doing that is to get us to use our language as if we do. The hope, whether you know it or not, is that by repeating it enough, it becomes real: by repetition, we absorb the meme: "God is to be respected". (Or, lesser, "Your view about your god is to be respected")

Except, you don't have the moral authority to impose (even by suggestion) such a thing, nor am I like the racist and harming a real person with my lack of "respect" for your religious beliefs: Gods are not harmed by my lack of respect.

This is an issue of social engineering, and I see you on the wrong side. We can debate that, but I don't think I'm wrong about the impulse for Political Correctness.

I'm not against PC, I endorse it. I simply disagree that your idea of capitalizing "god" is important - and, in fact, I find it abhorrent and against everything I believe.

My point, lest people twist this, is that this is a Language issue. It's about social engineering, the culture war, propaganda, manipulation through language and moral authority. It's a big issue, and I won't cede one inch of it because someone doesn't like their personal religious view disrespected - when they can't even prove their religious view is even remotely true or reasonable.




edit: I will add that I notice you don't write "G-d" or Jesus (PBUH). Why is it that we only respect your beliefs and not someone elses?

Why don't you respect others and write accordingly?


Because it's not what you mean, is it. If you were to write (PBUH) every time you write Jesus or Mohammad, you'd feel that you are seemingly respecting Islam in a way that you don't.

[dianaiad]

In this day and age, if one does not hold the "politically correct" view on gay marraige, one sometimes risks one's very livelihood by being hounded out of one's position.

Right. "In this day and age" we are enlightened and have the proper moral authority to demand bigots dont impinge on the rights of otherwise good people.

So...it is perfectly fine to pressure people into using the terminology you prefer, to change their minds, beliefs and behaviors using financial and legal methods, as long as the ideas you want them to espouse are agreeable to you?

I understand.

I will remind you the the Bible's original stance was to kill gays. Christians have a long history of killing people they dont like, and they even celebrate their hero who promises to come back and punish the people he doesnt like.

True, atheists have a much shorter history of killing people they don't like, but boy, did they make up for that in efficiency!

Or to put it another way; I do not see any hint or evidence that being an atheist stops any of the killing, especially in multiples and because of philosophical disagreements.

So, before you get high and mighty, how about you conider the religion you are representing.

And regarding the request I put forward in the OP, I make the same request of Theists too. One preacher recently said "we need to follow the Holy Spirit wherever it leads."

The holy spirit led Moses to commit genocide and Andrea Yates to kill her children. The holy spirit is another word for "conscience", except its anthropomorphized as primitive superstitious people are prone to do.

I wish the preacher had used the pronoun "He" but am not offended by his usage because I know in that case there was no disrespect intended. But I do think it is ironic that those who consider the Holy Spirit a PERSON of the Trinity, do not speak of Him as a person, grammatically, at least.

it sounds like you just want your beliefs to be respected. They arent.

Well, it's fairly obvious that you don't. It's also fairly obvious that this is the touchstone: if you agree with the beliefs, then those who hold them are justified in whatever they do to ensure their freedom to express and live according to them, from cultural and financial pressure to legal means. However, if you don't agree with the beliefs held, then you do not believe that the holder of them has those rights, even the right to request that his ability to hold opinions other than yours be respected.

yes, I do have that one figured out, too.

Most people on this planet do not respect other peoples superstitions. I certainly dont respect anyone who lies to children, which is what religions do.

Point of grammar and definition:

lie
1 [lahy] Show IPA
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

In order to be a lie, it must be deliberate; the speaker of it must know that it is an untruth. YOUR opinion of the truthfulness of what is said is irrelevant; it's what the speaker thinks that makes something a lie. I challenge you to prove that all those religions and all those parents, in teaching their religious beliefs to their children are 'making false statements with deliberate intent to deceive: an intentional untruth."

You cannot have this both ways, y'know; if someone believes what they are saying, they aren't lying. If they are lying, they don't really believe. So what are these folks to you...stupid OR evil? You can't have both, and you will have to prove either.

This discussion is the same as Xians asking that everyone spell their religion the way they like, or capitalizing jesus. Its an attempt to lie: to get people to say what they dont mean, but it makes Xians feel better because it gives the apperance of nonbelivers respecting thier religion.

You mean the way the gay pride folks ask that everybody use their preferred nomenclature, even when those they are asking disagree with their positions, or African Americans get upset when the 'n' word is used (unless, of course, they use it on each other. Then it's fine).

Why is it reasonable for gays and African Americans and any number of other folks to request that others use the correct nouns to refer to them, and their beliefs, but not for the religious to request the same? When it comes down to it, the reasons for NOT using the preferred naming conventions are the same no matter who is agitating for the right to use whatever nouns they want to refer to someone else's beliefs: the right to be deliberately disrespectful and the right to show disdain.

I mean, you have that right; I'm simply pointing out the double standard being used here.

But its a lie.

Its the same as asking racists to say "African-American" when they really mean to say "nigger". It's not what they mean.

However, we had the moral authority to force racists (not through violence, but cajoling, ridicule and polite request) to change their behavior. It's blatant social engineering, but for a Moral reason.

"Moral" as defined by you. Who died and made you the arbiter of morality in the world, Ooberman?

Yes, that's a flippant way to ask, but it's a serious question. Why do you think that your particular morality is the one that should prevail over the world and language use?

I'm about to issue what I'm certain you will see as an extremely nasty insult, but it's simply an observation. Your position, please pardon me for saying so (or not), reminds me very sharply of a fundamentalist preacher my companion (I was a missionary at the time) and I ran into forty years ago or so.

He had invited us to his church meeting, assigned us good seats where we could see (and be seen by the entire congregation) and about as far from the exit as he could contrive.

He began by railing against all the evil folks in town who wouldn't come to his church, or who dressed immodestly, who drank beer on Sundays, who actually had their stores open specifically in order to tempt HIS congregation into them, who refused to recognize him as the leader of God in the land....and then spent the rest of his sermon screaming about deceivingly handsome young men who were out to seduce all the young women of the congregation and haul them back to Salt Lake City to imprison in seraglios. Evil incarnate, these men were, His congregation was to picket these men's apartment, block their ability to preach, see to it that they could not speak to anybody in town, make sure that nobody would sell them food or anything else,

He ended the diatribe by a dramatic swing of his arm, pointing at where we were sitting. "And there they are, these minions of Satan, out to seduce your daughters and lead them to hell!" (his actual words were slightly different, but I can't really put them in here).

I guess someone had forgotten to tell them that the new Mormon missionaries were a couple of 20 something girls who were more modestly dressed than any of the women in his congregation.

Things went downhill from there. For him. My companion and I had a ball. ;

I suppose that your position on this should not remind me of this man so much, but it does.

What I hear when I hear a request to "respect" your religious views by having me say something I don't mean, I recognize it for what it is: social engineering.

So...social engineering is bad unless you approve of the goal?

You want us to respect GOD, and one way of doing that is to get us to use our language as if we do. The hope, whether you know it or not, is that by repeating it enough, it becomes real: by repetition, we absorb the meme: "God is to be respected". (Or, lesser, "Your view about your god is to be respected")

Except, you don't have the moral authority to impose (even by suggestion) such a thing, nor am I like the racist and harming a real person with my lack of "respect" for your religious beliefs: Gods are not harmed by my lack of respect.

No, gods are not. No specific god is. My version of Him isn't...and wouldn't be even if you thought He was real. However, since you don't believe in any version of him, we are all quite aware that the true target of your disdain is not God, but those who believe in Him; you know, the people?

Would you swallow an opponent of gay rights who said that they referred to gays by demeaning and insulting language, not because they had no respect for the people, but because they had no respect for the ideas and positions they hold?

For instance, if I said that I disagree strongly with the idea of gay marriage, and firmly believe that marriage, in the sight of God, can only be between men and women, would you accept that as not being insulting to gays as PEOPLE?

It doesn't work both ways.

This is an issue of social engineering, and I see you on the wrong side. We can debate that, but I don't think I'm wrong about the impulse for Political Correctness.

I'm not against PC, I endorse it. I simply disagree that your idea of capitalizing "god" is important - and, in fact, I find it abhorrent and against everything I believe.

My point, lest people twist this, is that this is a Language issue. It's about social engineering, the culture war, propaganda, manipulation through language and moral authority. It's a big issue, and I won't cede one inch of it because someone doesn't like their personal religious view disrespected - when they can't even prove their religious view is even remotely true or reasonable.

That is, of course, your right.

Nor am I suggesting (unlike the gays who will use any and every financial and legal method possible to ensure that their 'requests' are complied with) that anybody make you do or say anything you don't want to.

I'm simply pointing out the incredible double standard you are employing.

If social engineering is wrong, it's wrong no matter who's doing it or how much you agree with the goal.

If it is right, then it's right...no matter who's doing it or whether you agree with the goal. You cannot, logically, approve of social engineering if it steers society in a way you like, and rail against if it it doesn't.

edit: I will add that I notice you don't write "G-d" or Jesus (PBUH). Why is it that we only respect your beliefs and not someone elses?

Why don't you respect others and write accordingly?

I do, actually. If someone requests it of me, I try.

Because it's not what you mean, is it. If you were to write (PBUH) every time you write Jesus or Mohammad, you'd feel that you are seemingly respecting Islam in a way that you don't.

I don't believe in Islam. I do, however, respect the believers (as long as they aren't trying to kill me or forcibly convert me, anyway). And if it bothers them that I don't put PBUH after Mohammad's name, I'll put PBUH after Mohammad's name. In return, I'll expect them to refer to Jesus and God in the fashion I prefer.

Or, we will mutually agree to use our own forms to refer to God, in an understanding that there is no intent to demean or disparage.

You can't say the same.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 89 by Ooberman]

To be fair, most any religion can be considered 'a train wreck' by some. One's 'wreck' is another's deliverence.
That's what beliefs are - personal acceptance for an idea without factual support.
And sometimes, those seem 'crazy' or 'weird' - and other times, they truly are.
To each their own really - so long as they keep it to themselves.
That said, anyone who expects respect, no matter if they give it or not, is in for a rude awakening at some point.

[Clownboat]

In this day and age, if one does not hold the "politically correct" view on gay marraige, one sometimes risks one's very livelihood by being hounded out of one's position.

Right. "In this day and age" we are enlightened and have the proper moral authority to demand bigots dont impinge on the rights of otherwise good people.

So...it is perfectly fine to pressure people into using the terminology you prefer, to change their minds, beliefs and behaviors using financial and legal methods, as long as the ideas you want them to espouse are agreeable to you?

I understand.

I will remind you the the Bible's original stance was to kill gays. Christians have a long history of killing people they dont like, and they even celebrate their hero who promises to come back and punish the people he doesnt like.

True, atheists have a much shorter history of killing people they don't like, but boy, did they make up for that in efficiency!

Or to put it another way; I do not see any hint or evidence that being an atheist stops any of the killing, especially in multiples and because of philosophical disagreements.

So, before you get high and mighty, how about you conider the religion you are representing.

And regarding the request I put forward in the OP, I make the same request of Theists too. One preacher recently said "we need to follow the Holy Spirit wherever it leads."

The holy spirit led Moses to commit genocide and Andrea Yates to kill her children. The holy spirit is another word for "conscience", except its anthropomorphized as primitive superstitious people are prone to do.

I wish the preacher had used the pronoun "He" but am not offended by his usage because I know in that case there was no disrespect intended. But I do think it is ironic that those who consider the Holy Spirit a PERSON of the Trinity, do not speak of Him as a person, grammatically, at least.

it sounds like you just want your beliefs to be respected. They arent.

Well, it's fairly obvious that you don't. It's also fairly obvious that this is the touchstone: if you agree with the beliefs, then those who hold them are justified in whatever they do to ensure their freedom to express and live according to them, from cultural and financial pressure to legal means. However, if you don't agree with the beliefs held, then you do not believe that the holder of them has those rights, even the right to request that his ability to hold opinions other than yours be respected.

yes, I do have that one figured out, too.

Most people on this planet do not respect other peoples superstitions. I certainly dont respect anyone who lies to children, which is what religions do.

Point of grammar and definition:

lie
1 [lahy] Show IPA
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

In order to be a lie, it must be deliberate; the speaker of it must know that it is an untruth. YOUR opinion of the truthfulness of what is said is irrelevant; it's what the speaker thinks that makes something a lie. I challenge you to prove that all those religions and all those parents, in teaching their religious beliefs to their children are 'making false statements with deliberate intent to deceive: an intentional untruth."

You cannot have this both ways, y'know; if someone believes what they are saying, they aren't lying. If they are lying, they don't really believe. So what are these folks to you...stupid OR evil? You can't have both, and you will have to prove either.

This discussion is the same as Xians asking that everyone spell their religion the way they like, or capitalizing jesus. Its an attempt to lie: to get people to say what they dont mean, but it makes Xians feel better because it gives the apperance of nonbelivers respecting thier religion.

You mean the way the gay pride folks ask that everybody use their preferred nomenclature, even when those they are asking disagree with their positions, or African Americans get upset when the 'n' word is used (unless, of course, they use it on each other. Then it's fine).

Why is it reasonable for gays and African Americans and any number of other folks to request that others use the correct nouns to refer to them, and their beliefs, but not for the religious to request the same? When it comes down to it, the reasons for NOT using the preferred naming conventions are the same no matter who is agitating for the right to use whatever nouns they want to refer to someone else's beliefs: the right to be deliberately disrespectful and the right to show disdain.

I mean, you have that right; I'm simply pointing out the double standard being used here.

But its a lie.

Its the same as asking racists to say "African-American" when they really mean to say "nigger". It's not what they mean.

However, we had the moral authority to force racists (not through violence, but cajoling, ridicule and polite request) to change their behavior. It's blatant social engineering, but for a Moral reason.

"Moral" as defined by you. Who died and made you the arbiter of morality in the world, Ooberman?

Yes, that's a flippant way to ask, but it's a serious question. Why do you think that your particular morality is the one that should prevail over the world and language use?

I'm about to issue what I'm certain you will see as an extremely nasty insult, but it's simply an observation. Your position, please pardon me for saying so (or not), reminds me very sharply of a fundamentalist preacher my companion (I was a missionary at the time) and I ran into forty years ago or so.

He had invited us to his church meeting, assigned us good seats where we could see (and be seen by the entire congregation) and about as far from the exit as he could contrive.

He began by railing against all the evil folks in town who wouldn't come to his church, or who dressed immodestly, who drank beer on Sundays, who actually had their stores open specifically in order to tempt HIS congregation into them, who refused to recognize him as the leader of God in the land....and then spent the rest of his sermon screaming about deceivingly handsome young men who were out to seduce all the young women of the congregation and haul them back to Salt Lake City to imprison in seraglios. Evil incarnate, these men were, His congregation was to picket these men's apartment, block their ability to preach, see to it that they could not speak to anybody in town, make sure that nobody would sell them food or anything else,

He ended the diatribe by a dramatic swing of his arm, pointing at where we were sitting. "And there they are, these minions of Satan, out to seduce your daughters and lead them to hell!" (his actual words were slightly different, but I can't really put them in here).

I guess someone had forgotten to tell them that the new Mormon missionaries were a couple of 20 something girls who were more modestly dressed than any of the women in his congregation.

Things went downhill from there. For him. My companion and I had a ball. ;

I suppose that your position on this should not remind me of this man so much, but it does.

What I hear when I hear a request to "respect" your religious views by having me say something I don't mean, I recognize it for what it is: social engineering.

So...social engineering is bad unless you approve of the goal?

You want us to respect GOD, and one way of doing that is to get us to use our language as if we do. The hope, whether you know it or not, is that by repeating it enough, it becomes real: by repetition, we absorb the meme: "God is to be respected". (Or, lesser, "Your view about your god is to be respected")

Except, you don't have the moral authority to impose (even by suggestion) such a thing, nor am I like the racist and harming a real person with my lack of "respect" for your religious beliefs: Gods are not harmed by my lack of respect.

No, gods are not. No specific god is. My version of Him isn't...and wouldn't be even if you thought He was real. However, since you don't believe in any version of him, we are all quite aware that the true target of your disdain is not God, but those who believe in Him; you know, the people?

Would you swallow an opponent of gay rights who said that they referred to gays by demeaning and insulting language, not because they had no respect for the people, but because they had no respect for the ideas and positions they hold?

For instance, if I said that I disagree strongly with the idea of gay marriage, and firmly believe that marriage, in the sight of God, can only be between men and women, would you accept that as not being insulting to gays as PEOPLE?

It doesn't work both ways.

This is an issue of social engineering, and I see you on the wrong side. We can debate that, but I don't think I'm wrong about the impulse for Political Correctness.

I'm not against PC, I endorse it. I simply disagree that your idea of capitalizing "god" is important - and, in fact, I find it abhorrent and against everything I believe.

My point, lest people twist this, is that this is a Language issue. It's about social engineering, the culture war, propaganda, manipulation through language and moral authority. It's a big issue, and I won't cede one inch of it because someone doesn't like their personal religious view disrespected - when they can't even prove their religious view is even remotely true or reasonable.

That is, of course, your right.

Nor am I suggesting (unlike the gays who will use any and every financial and legal method possible to ensure that their 'requests' are complied with) that anybody make you do or say anything you don't want to.

I'm simply pointing out the incredible double standard you are employing.

If social engineering is wrong, it's wrong no matter who's doing it or how much you agree with the goal.

If it is right, then it's right...no matter who's doing it or whether you agree with the goal. You cannot, logically, approve of social engineering if it steers society in a way you like, and rail against if it it doesn't.

edit: I will add that I notice you don't write "G-d" or Jesus (PBUH). Why is it that we only respect your beliefs and not someone elses?

Why don't you respect others and write accordingly?

I do, actually. If someone requests it of me, I try.

Because it's not what you mean, is it. If you were to write (PBUH) every time you write Jesus or Mohammad, you'd feel that you are seemingly respecting Islam in a way that you don't.

I don't believe in Islam. I do, however, respect the believers (as long as they aren't trying to kill me or forcibly convert me, anyway). And if it bothers them that I don't put PBUH after Mohammad's name, I'll put PBUH after Mohammad's name. In return, I'll expect them to refer to Jesus and God in the fashion I prefer.

Or, we will mutually agree to use our own forms to refer to God, in an understanding that there is no intent to demean or disparage.

You can't say the same.

This capitalization request was asked to take place in a forum designed to be a fair place to debate competing religious ideas. This is very important. The focus here is fairness not respect (it is a requirement to a degree, but I'm talking about the focus), because their will be a lack of respect going both ways for the competing ideas naturally.

You guys keep trying to compare this to not being able to use slurs on homosexuals and African Americans in the public setting.
If you feel you should be able to use racial slurs in public, and you feel strongly enough about it, please start a thread on it. I'm sure it would be entertaining.

I have argued against this "check for consistency" from the get go, yet you cannot address it nor let it go that you can't call homosexuals or other minorities racial slurs.

Either make the environments the same (a debate forum created to discuss competing ideas is the same as a public park for example), or attempt to let us know that you understand the difference between the two settings.

[Ooberman]

So...it is perfectly fine to pressure people into using the terminology you prefer, to change their minds, beliefs and behaviors using financial and legal methods, as long as the ideas you want them to espouse are agreeable to you?

I understand.

YES!!!! It's a culture war. We don't all agree on everything. I don't honor some things that you do, nor do you honor things I do.

So, we are each in a war of language. I am trying to get my way, you yours.

I am making my case based on an appeal (emotional or logical) that I hope others agree with so that my side wins.

This is the way the world works. He who controls the language, controls more.

True, atheists have a much shorter history of killing people they don't like, but boy, did they make up for that in efficiency!

Or to put it another way; I do not see any hint or evidence that being an atheist stops any of the killing, especially in multiples and because of philosophical disagreements.

Right, people kill people over ideas. I am not advocating it like the Bible, or Communism does.

I am expressing a moral authority - if I can get people to agree with my version of morality - that NOT killing people over this is better, but that doesn't mean I don't want "my side" to win.

I think it's better than we don't kill people over ideas, do you agree? If so, come and join me!

I wouldn't want you to be forced to write "G_d" or "PBUH" if you don't feel like it, even if it offends some people.

Do you agree?

I hope so. I think it would be a shame if society felt that this was the properly moral thing to do: to write or talk as if you honor something you don't.

Do you agree?

So, before you get high and mighty, how about you conider the religion you are representing.

Well, it's fairly obvious that you don't. It's also fairly obvious that this is the touchstone: if you agree with the beliefs, then those who hold them are justified in whatever they do to ensure their freedom to express and live according to them, from cultural and financial pressure to legal means. However, if you don't agree with the beliefs held, then you do not believe that the holder of them has those rights, even the right to request that his ability to hold opinions other than yours be respected.

yes, I do have that one figured out, too.

I don't think you do.

My views are only to be respected in a way that people would agree they should be respected. Like everyone else.

I am simply making my case. You don't have to agree.

Here are two positions. Vote for one.

1. We all write "G-d", "Him", "Jesus (PBUH)", "Mohammad (PBUH)", etc., and never write anything that would offend any believer of any supernatural Being.

2. We write how we feel, that best expresses our personal thoughts, regardless if someone is offended.

Which do you prefer?

Point of grammar and definition:

lie
1 [lahy] Show IPA
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.[/i]

In order to be a lie, it must be deliberate; the speaker of it must know that it is an untruth. YOUR opinion of the truthfulness of what is said is irrelevant; it's what the speaker thinks that makes something a lie. I challenge you to prove that all those religions and all those parents, in teaching their religious beliefs to their children are 'making false statements with deliberate intent to deceive: an intentional untruth."

You cannot have this both ways, y'know; if someone believes what they are saying, they aren't lying. If they are lying, they don't really believe. So what are these folks to you...stupid OR evil? You can't have both, and you will have to prove either.

I meant lie and I stand by it. However, I also think there are shades of lies. For example, the lie you tell the Nazi's at Anne Frank's house... (of course, as a Christian, knowing that God burns Jews for eternity, and the Nazi's had a god on their side, I'm not sure what you might tell them)...

I'd lie to them and say she wasn't home.

That's one lie that isn't evil or stupid.

There are others.

I think religionists lie to themselves, first. But I also have a general poor opinion of religionists - as you know. I think religionists know they are peddling woo, but they are lied to believe it's a virtue.

I understand you disagree. However, I since you can't prove to me you really believe in gods, angels, etc., and you can't prove they exist - and in fact, there is a good reason to believe they don't - I think you "ought" to stop being a religionist.

I understand you disagree, but your only response can be (in effect) "but I really believe it and so should you. (or, don't, but don't accuse me of lying or not believing in true things)."

You mean the way the gay pride folks ask that everybody use their preferred nomenclature, even when those they are asking disagree with their positions, or African Americans get upset when the 'n' word is used (unless, of course, they use it on each other. Then it's fine).

An EXCELLENT example!

That was a form of propaganda; of social engineering. They made their argument, and guess what - a majority of people agreed! The system works!

Why is it reasonable for gays and African Americans and any number of other folks to request that others use the correct nouns to refer to them, and their beliefs, but not for the religious to request the same? When it comes down to it, the reasons for NOT using the preferred naming conventions are the same no matter who is agitating for the right to use whatever nouns they want to refer to someone else's beliefs: the right to be deliberately disrespectful and the right to show disdain.

It's reasonable because most people found it to be reasonable - even you.

Why do you think it's OK for blacks to say the "n" word? You have a reason, right?

I mean, you have that right; I'm simply pointing out the double standard being used here.

I'm not hiding from the fact that there is a double standard - THAT'S THE POINT!!!!

You make your case, I'll make mine and we'll see which wins in the court of public opinion.

Hint: Facts work best, good logic works best, and while emotional appeals are powerful, they work better when built on demonstrable facts - not supernatural tales.

I think this is why religionists don't like this system: they want their religious views to be respected as if it's a basic birth right.

"Moral" as defined by you. Who died and made you the arbiter of morality in the world, Ooberman?

No one. I'm not. I'm only a moral arbiter for MY moral values - and I get to speak and appeal to people - then hope they agree.

It's the same for everyone. Even people who think they get to choose absolute moral authority in the form of choosing a religion.

Yes, that's a flippant way to ask, but it's a serious question. Why do you think that your particular morality is the one that should prevail over the world and language use?

Because I prefer it and think I'm a good guy. I imagine you feel the same way about your view of morality.

We both get to voice our opinions and see if everyone else agrees.

I'm about to issue what I'm certain you will see as an extremely nasty insult, but it's simply an observation.

I didn't take it as insulting at all. I understand it's a valid and important question.

Your position, please pardon me for saying so (or not), reminds me very sharply of a fundamentalist preacher my companion (I was a missionary at the time) and I ran into forty years ago or so.

He had invited us to his church meeting, assigned us good seats where we could see (and be seen by the entire congregation) and about as far from the exit as he could contrive.

He began by railing against all the evil folks in town who wouldn't come to his church, or who dressed immodestly, who drank beer on Sundays, who actually had their stores open specifically in order to tempt HIS congregation into them, who refused to recognize him as the leader of God in the land....and then spent the rest of his sermon screaming about deceivingly handsome young men who were out to seduce all the young women of the congregation and haul them back to Salt Lake City to imprison in seraglios. Evil incarnate, these men were, His congregation was to picket these men's apartment, block their ability to preach, see to it that they could not speak to anybody in town, make sure that nobody would sell them food or anything else,

He ended the diatribe by a dramatic swing of his arm, pointing at where we were sitting. "And there they are, these minions of Satan, out to seduce your daughters and lead them to hell!" (his actual words were slightly different, but I can't really put them in here).

I guess someone had forgotten to tell them that the new Mormon missionaries were a couple of 20 something girls who were more modestly dressed than any of the women in his congregation.

Things went downhill from there. For him. My companion and I had a ball. ;

I suppose that your position on this should not remind me of this man so much, but it does.

I have none of the same moral values as he does, but I may have the same convictions - we all have the same ability to appeal to the masses.

Maybe he was better at getting people to agree with him - since I don't have a following - but that doesn't stop me from trying.

Know this: I don't think people should be killed for their beliefs or tortured for what they think.

That's a good start for moral values - right? Do you agree?

So...social engineering is bad unless you approve of the goal?

Right.

SE is good if it's good (we decide what's good)
SE is bad if it's bad (we decide what's bad)

I can only hope I, not being a Nazi, don't live in a country ruled by Nazi's. If I did, I'd have to decide to speak up and change things to my ideas, or stay silent (and live another day).

That would be a personal choice.

No, gods are not. No specific god is. My version of Him isn't...and wouldn't be even if you thought He was real. However, since you don't believe in any version of him, we are all quite aware that the true target of your disdain is not God, but those who believe in Him; you know, the people?

The ideas. i care about the ideas. I get angry at the people. I'm human.

This is a saying I take to heart:

"Great minds discuss ideas
Average minds discuss events
Small minds discuss people"

I don't know if it's true, absolutely, but I prefer to talk about ideas. Not events or people.

Would you swallow an opponent of gay rights who said that they referred to gays by demeaning and insulting language, not because they had no respect for the people, but because they had no respect for the ideas and positions they hold?

For instance, if I said that I disagree strongly with the idea of gay marriage, and firmly believe that marriage, in the sight of God, can only be between men and women, would you accept that as not being insulting to gays as PEOPLE?

It doesn't work both ways.

If someone made a case that calling gay people "fags" was OK, and it was rational, I'd hope I'd agree. I don't think anyone can make that case.

However, this is not the same thing. I am refusing to write "God", not that I'm calling the god believer a "fag" (or whatever the equivalent is).

However, I don't think you are against gay marriage because you think gays are "fags" (and the associated hatred that accompanies the term), but that your religious views are contrary to it.

Religious views aren't the only governing law in this country.

That is, of course, your right.

And yours! It's a great world we live in!

Nor am I suggesting (unlike the gays who will use any and every financial and legal method possible to ensure that their 'requests' are complied with) that anybody make you do or say anything you don't want to.

Are you denying them the right to use resources for their cause as they see fit?

I'm simply pointing out the incredible double standard you are employing.

If social engineering is wrong, it's wrong no matter who's doing it or how much you agree with the goal.

Social engineering isn't wrong. There are some things that seem wrong, others that don't.

If it is right, then it's right...no matter who's doing it or whether you agree with the goal. You cannot, logically, approve of social engineering if it steers society in a way you like, and rail against if it it doesn't.

Sure I can!

I can disagree with Nazi's, and I can agree with Public service announcements telling people to 'give a hoot, don't pollute".

Those are two extremes of social engineering.

I do, actually. If someone requests it of me, I try.

Then I ask that you write (PBUH) every time you write the name Jesus.

Will you do it?

Or will you declare Mohammad the last prophet of the only God, Allah?

To what limit will you go to please other people, and go against your own beliefs?

Will you kill a Jew if asked nicely? (Obviously I say that to make a larger point, not that I endorse it.)

I don't believe in Islam. I do, however, respect the believers (as long as they aren't trying to kill me or forcibly convert me, anyway). And if it bothers them that I don't put PBUH after Mohammad's name, I'll put PBUH after Mohammad's name. In return, I'll expect them to refer to Jesus and God in the fashion I prefer.

So, you want everyone to lie about their beliefs to make everyone happy?

Or, we will mutually agree to use our own forms to refer to God, in an understanding that there is no intent to demean or disparage.

You can't say the same.

Right - I am very clear that I hate theism and superstitious thinking. I don't hate the people, but I do get angry at them some times.

We are no different, we each have our positions - we simply differ on this one.

We both have the chance - if no one truies to censor our language - to appeal to the public for support of our view.


My position: NO THOUGHT POLICE! You ought to be free to think how you wish and express your thoughts freely (with normal caveats - "fire in a theater" kind of thing).

It's one thing to be polite for expediency (at a friends dinner party), but not in a forum designed to exchange, defend and promote ideas.

i'm bothered by the light constitution of people unable to handle swear words, but I accept that as a public convention. i could make my case, but I don't think I'd win.

However, I'd rather leave this forum than have to use terms in ways I don't mean - namely, giving respect to disrespectful ideas. After all, in my mind, your god, Yahweh, is a moral monster and deserves punishment, not praise - if it were real.
You are better than your god. I see you as more noble and more moral.

And, because I'm able to speak my mind here, I think you have a decent idea of my thoughts - whether you agree or disagree. You know where I stand. That should mean something, and it should be important - iff you want others to know where you stand and what you are arguing against.

[dianaiad]

snipping all the way to here, because this is too long and I think that I can get to the relevant stuff from this:

Nor am I suggesting (unlike the gays who will use any and every financial and legal method possible to ensure that their 'requests' are complied with) that anybody make you do or say anything you don't want to.

Are you denying them the right to use resources for their cause as they see fit?

No.

But you are, in all your diatribes, are denying Christians those rights. Or rather, you claim that they shouldn't have those rights; you are tilting the playing field, Clownboat.

That you understand you are is simply....there is nothing to say to that. But the idea that it is OK to cheat as long as the idea is a good one is not supposed to be an acceptable ethical stance. The end does not justify the means. Never has.

Then I ask that you write (PBUH) every time you write the name Jesus.

Will you do it?

No. I would if someone to whom it actually mattered asked me. But for you?

No. If you can, however, get a muslim to ask me, then I would, in my conversations with him or her.

Or will you declare Mohammad the last prophet of the only God, Allah?

No, because I believe that the last prophet of the only God probably hasn't been born yet. However, I would insert PBUH after Mohammad's name if I'm in conversation with a Muslim and am asked to do so.

I'm not out to force my lack of belief upon anybody; the idea is to show respect to the wishes of those with whom I converse, when I converse with them. I would not go out of my way to disparage beliefs when the only reason for doing so is to disparage the believers.

I mean, really, Ooberman; what's it to you whether you capitalize the "G" in "God" when speaking of Him to someone who believes in Him? I mean, if you honestly believed that His name was Zeus, and using the correct name is important to your religious life, then of course use Zeus. But you don't have such a belief. The only reason, and I do mean the ONLY reason you have for not using standard practice in this matter (capitalizing the G when "God" is used as a proper noun) is to insult the believer. That's it. That's all.

You can do what you want. I'm simply letting you know that we know why you do it.

To what limit will you go to please other people, and go against your own beliefs?

I would not violate my beliefs. Nor would I ask others to violate theirs. You, however, would not be violating your beliefs to capitalize a letter any more than wishing piece upon Mohammad is violating mine.

Will you kill a Jew if asked nicely? (Obviously I say that to make a larger point, not that I endorse it.)

I don't believe in Islam. I do, however, respect the believers (as long as they aren't trying to kill me or forcibly convert me, anyway). And if it bothers them that I don't put PBUH after Mohammad's name, I'll put PBUH after Mohammad's name. In return, I'll expect them to refer to Jesus and God in the fashion I prefer.

So, you want everyone to lie about their beliefs to make everyone happy?

How is that asking anybody to lie about their beliefs? I mean, really? How?

Or, we will mutually agree to use our own forms to refer to God, in an understanding that there is no intent to demean or disparage.

You can't say the same.

Right - I am very clear that I hate theism and superstitious thinking. I don't hate the people, but I do get angry at them some times.

I'm sorry, but...

since you do not believe that there is a god to be offended, and therefore capitalizing a letter does not violate your beliefs that there is no god to be offended, then your persistence in this matter can only be to disparage THE PEOPLE.

snip to end.

[Ooberman]

I take it you agreed with the parts you edited out. That's what I do.


A Capital "G" in god means a reference to a specific god as if that god is the one and only god.

I don't believe there is one and only god, nor that there is any Being that deserves or even warrants that title.

"God" does not exist. Gods don't exist.

However, please note that I always capitalize your name, Di. That is respecting YOU as a person.

[Zzyzx]

.

So, before you get high and mighty, how about you conider the religion you are representing.

The holy spirit is another word for "conscience", except its anthropomorphized as primitive superstitious people are prone to do.

it sounds like you just want your beliefs to be respected. They arent.

Its the same as asking racists to say "African-American" when they really mean to say "nigger". It's not what they mean.

Moderator Warning

Please do not make demeaning comments to fellow members or their religious beliefs.

Argue against ideas, not personalities or religious generalities.

One who is already on probation should consider their words carefully (or become another Nothead -- the most recently banned)

Please review the Rules.
______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.[/quote]

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 98 by Ooberman]

OK, I got a couple of admissions to make. This thread has gotten SO long and unwieldy that it is difficult for me to remeber exactly who said what, and my computer cannot keep up with the constant scrolling up and down, so forgive me if I respond from memory to a few things.

Another admission is ya got me.... I do not use PBUH when referring to Mohammed, even though I do consider him a Prophet of God, but he is not MY prophet. I wouldn't mind if a poster, for instance asked, even though I would not comply. But I would not resent or protest loudly and extensively all the reasons the Muslim had no right to ask.

And you know something? I have never encountered a Muslim who insisted non-Muslims use that designation, so it is a somewhat theoretical case.

But I have shown my respect for their belief that Mohammed is the last (and to their mind, greatest prophet,) in other ways, even though I do not agree about his importance.

But again, your contempt for the idea of God is understood, and noted.I will not try to brow beat you into adopting my suggestion.

And for those Atheisests and Agnostics who ARE willing to accept some suggestions, your civility is MUCH appreciated.

I was trying to point out a few things with this thread, basically voice a way of offering alternatives with which to refer to God, (instead of "it") FOR THOSE WHO ARE RECEPTIVE TO THAT SUGGESTION, and also to contrast that REQUEST to the DEMANDS of the Left that we use "politically correct" nomenclature when referring to minorities and gays.

Just trying to point out a contrast and a double standard here, as it seems that many here who promote gay rights also have no belief in the Supernatural, so it would be a comparison and contrast that many here could/should be able to relate to.

And just to clarify, I don't think ANYONE here was arguing for the "right" to call gays the "f" word or African Americans the "n" word. We, everyone here, respect both groups of people too much to resort to using those smear words.