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.

[Ooberman]

[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.

I dont know why my posts sere flagged. Its annoying.

I have no problem the any individual wants this or that. People are great. All of you are wonderful.

However, not all ideas are great. My point, ALWAYS, is to discuss the topic. If a "you" slips in its because its the way language works. I usually mean it to say "the idea you are presenting"...
Anyhow, i dont think you personally did anything wrong asking people to side with you on a position. Its how democracy works: propose an idea, find support, get a vote.

As for your idea, i vote "no" for the reasons i have outlined.

Meanwhile, i notice that i am personally being attacked for my position.

Im not complaining except for the fact that it will be me who gets banned.

The thing that is often lost in these "cant we be civil?" Debates is that we ARE being civil by discussing ideas that have historically led to bloodshed. There is a real culture war, and there are important things at stake.

For example, some atheists would like to destroy all churches, obliterate all religion. There are some religionists would would do the same to non-believers.
There are less drastic things at stake, but no less important.
There are ways of life at stake. Ancient traditions.

I have little interest in personal stories. I dont care about personal testimonies, or personal revelations, or opinions that dont matter.

I come here to discuss ideas specifically related to supernatural claims.

What i see as the point of interest, for me, in this discussion is that writing "God" is a stealth way of the "other side" to get "us" to respect something we dont.

Let me give a better example.

Since not everyone believes in the same god, i'd like it that all theists refer to their god as "the god character in my favorite religious text", so i know which god you are talking about.

Now, imagine if i could get every theist to use that language? It would be a great win for atheism because it would create the message that all gods are characters in books and not "God".

I would suggest that theists do not do this, btw, but i would like them to.

I hope people see my point.

This post is not directed at anyone, but i hope to continue the discussion.



Also, btw, i have a thread i started that asked that people stop signing their names to their posts. I find it annoying. People didnt agree, or at least, the people doing it didnt stop. I lost that battle. Cest la guerre.

Anyhow, the point is, different groups have different lingo and speech patterns, atheists dont honor the same things as theists and so we wouldnt expect them to speak the same - for example, with an reverence to mythical creatures
Theists will just have to accept that.
Just like i have to accept people will continue to sign their name after every post or write (PBUH).

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 100 by Elijah John]

Let me make this even more succinct.

Theists, Please refer to your god as "it".

Because your god is not "God" according to my belifs but an "it".

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 101 by Ooberman]

If it was not something you said that I was responding to, my apologies. On the other hand,...if the shoe fits..please continue.

Personally, I don't like quoting for every response, as it tends to make the thread way too long and unweildy, but that's just me.

If I missed by usng the "reply" function to the wrong poster, again, my apologies.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 100 by Elijah John]

Let me make this even more succinct.

Theists, Please refer to your god as "it".

Because your god is not "God" according to my belifs but an "it".

This ole' pirate says: I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request, ...means "no".

You of course have that same right, I never said otherwise.

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 100 by Elijah John]

Let me make this even more succinct.

Theists, Please refer to your god as "it".

Because your god is not "God" according to my belifs but an "it".

This ole' pirate says: I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request, ...means "no".

You of course have that same right, I never said otherwise.

It's not about Rights. I agree, but that's a very shallow view of the issue, IMO.

Of course we can say whatever we want. Even in the most draconian society we can say what we want - and accept the consequences.

The larger point I am trying to make it WHY! Why do I have a reason, essentially, to be rude?

What justifies someone to break a convention that would enhance social well-being?

Obviously, if I could get along with people on this issue, I'd have... what? More money? More friends? There is a REASON - or should be, one would think. Right?


I'm not doing it because I have the Right. That's the reason I CAN do it, not the reason I act in the way I want.

It's also not for the sake of Free Will. Everyone has the freedom to do what they want - and they can accept the consequences.

What I am strongly trying to point out is the vast difference in REASONS between atheism and theism.

There is a coherent reason for why I oppose such a simple request; a seemingly benign request.

I also have to wonder: is it more than emotion why one would want atheists to write "God" instead of "it"?

When I read the OP, I don't see a reason other than it makes the theist happier.

Is that a REASON to do something?

I think this is an interesting exploration into the motivations of people, and particularly how belief in gods is a psychological and emotion issue, not a logical one.

If it is a logical issue (belief in gods), it seems to have failed in producing a logic reason for belief in gods.

Which, further supports the REASON for why I will continue to call gods "its" (unless I feel otherwise).

Theists are welcome to demonstrate their god is a "He" or any kind of Person - that's what I'm here for.

[dianaiad]

When I read the OP, I don't see a reason other than it makes the theist happier.

Is that a REASON to do something?

Hmmn. I would say it was, personally, but your question has a flip side: if you don't see a reason to make the theist happier, then is your reason for not doing it to make said theist unhappy?

Why would you want to do that?

Won't change his mind regarding his beliefs; I have long known that nothing cements a belief or an idea like opposition to it, and I have never, ever seen anybody change religions or ideologies because someone has sufficiently insulted the original.

What you do, by insulting the believer and his beliefs, is a bit like throwing manure at a lawn. Sure, it stinks a bit and is definitely horse...., and it sure smears the green, but the grass will grow much healthier for it.

So...what's the point?

[Ooberman]

When I read the OP, I don't see a reason other than it makes the theist happier.

Is that a REASON to do something?

Hmmn. I would say it was, personally, but your question has a flip side: if you don't see a reason to make the theist happier, then is your reason for not doing it to make said theist unhappy?

PLease don't make this about me. I am getting flagged for speaking about people, and wouldn't want the same to happen to you.

Please post your question without referencing another poster.

Why would you want to do that?

Please don't make this personal.

Won't change his mind regarding his beliefs; I have long known that nothing cements a belief or an idea like opposition to it, and I have never, ever seen anybody change religions or ideologies because someone has sufficiently insulted the original.

Please don't speak about yourself, it makes this too personal - which is against the rules.

What you do, by insulting the believer and his beliefs, is a bit like throwing manure at a lawn. Sure, it stinks a bit and is definitely horse...., and it sure smears the green, but the grass will grow much healthier for it.

So...what's the point?

Careful, this will probably get flagged because you have accused another poster of insulting another member.

Please speak about the issue without referencing another poster. I'm probably breaking the rules just talking to you.



Though, a point raised is that by using certain tactics, it may increase the fervor of a fanatic.

However, it's unknown if this is the case. It may decrease the fervor of a fanatic to know there are reasons against his or her superstitious belief.


Many people, and in fact most adults, move past their superstitions so a tactic of pointing out superstitious beliefs can often help those with superstitious beliefs move past them.

There is massive anecdotal evidence that many people become atheists because of tactics such as outlined in the impersonal posts by one or more unnamed posters.

There are many strategies that may be employed in curing people of superstitious beliefs.

[Clownboat]

When I read the OP, I don't see a reason other than it makes the theist happier.

Is that a REASON to do something?

Hmmn. I would say it was, personally, but your question has a flip side: if you don't see a reason to make the theist happier, then is your reason for not doing it to make said theist unhappy?

Why would you want to do that?

Won't change his mind regarding his beliefs; I have long known that nothing cements a belief or an idea like opposition to it, and I have never, ever seen anybody change religions or ideologies because someone has sufficiently insulted the original.

What you do, by insulting the believer and his beliefs, is a bit like throwing manure at a lawn. Sure, it stinks a bit and is definitely horse...., and it sure smears the green, but the grass will grow much healthier for it.

So...what's the point?

Theists, Please refer to your god as "it".

Because your god is not "God" according to my beliefs but an "it".

Will you acquiesce, will you continue to insult non believers and their non belief? By doing so, it's like throwing manure at a lawn....

It's a two way street.
Either way, for me, the main issue is that this request is being made on a forum designed to argue against competing concepts/ideas.
The request itself is not all that ridiculous, being made here on this forum is what makes it strange for me.

Boxers expect to get hit when in the ring.
This debate forum is much like a boxing ring. There are rules and it is moderated, but there will be blows. I never would have figured capitalization as a "blow" though, so perhaps this does suggest that religion is an emotionally driven belief.

[Ooberman]

When I read the OP, I don't see a reason other than it makes the theist happier.

Is that a REASON to do something?

Hmmn. I would say it was, personally, but your question has a flip side: if you don't see a reason to make the theist happier, then is your reason for not doing it to make said theist unhappy?


Why would you want to do that?

Won't change his mind regarding his beliefs; I have long known that nothing cements a belief or an idea like opposition to it, and I have never, ever seen anybody change religions or ideologies because someone has sufficiently insulted the original.

What you do, by insulting the believer and his beliefs, is a bit like throwing manure at a lawn. Sure, it stinks a bit and is definitely horse...., and it sure smears the green, but the grass will grow much healthier for it.

So...what's the point?

Theists, Please refer to your god as "it".

Because your god is not "God" according to my beliefs but an "it".

Will you acquiesce, will you continue to insult non believers and their non belief? By doing so, it's like throwing manure at a lawn....

It's a two way street.
Either way, for me, the main issue is that this request is being made on a forum designed to argue against competing concepts/ideas.
The request itself is not all that ridiculous, being made here on this forum is what makes it strange for me.

Boxers expect to get hit when in the ring.
This debate forum is much like a boxing ring. There are rules and it is moderated, but there will be blows. I never would have figured capitalization as a "blow" though, so perhaps this does suggest that religion is an emotionally driven belief.

That's how it appears to me.

Like a boxer saying "Please don't hit me in the face. I don't like it" Knowing that if his opponent agrees, his opponent has a better chance of losing.

Except the boxer isn't being clear, honest, or thoughtful about the request - and so reduces it to a matter of manners.

But, clearly, if someone isn't hitting someone in the face, it's not boxing. Call it whatever you want, it's not boxing.

And, if atheists start calling gods "God" and "Him" and "He", then it isn't debating - call it whatever you want, but it's not debating.

I may do it at a dinner party, but not on a DEBATE forum in which the very question of gods (their existence, character, etc.) is the only reason we are here.

[Elijah John]

Moderator Action

Shutting this one down, spinning our wheels here as both sides have made their points several times over.



______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.