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.

[dianaiad]

From Post 40:

Odd. I thought the 'eye for an eye' was one of those concepts that made the OT so objectionable?

I need no gods to tell me that if someone steals my breakfast, I have a right to steal me one of theirs.

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 you ostensibly expect me to offer respect to folks who, by way of their ancient holy texts declare me a fool.

I expect nothing, Joey, without having offered it first.

How 'bout the one that started it, maybe they oughta offer up a modicum of respect, so the ball can set to rolling?

"Naw, can't do that, 'cause it was God himself a-callin' ya a fool, only I, by worship, just simply agree."

Bull feathers.

I most certainly did not write it down over a thousand years ago all what kinda fool folks are for not agreeing with me.

"You", however, worship the very god you claim considers me such a fool.

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.

"Use the terminology I say ya oughta, not what most fits."

To hold to your demand, ought'n I now declare Christians idiots?

That's what me and my god think about a good bunch of 'em.

How 'bout now, when you mention Christians, you include them being a bunch of idiots, to appease me and my god?

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

This is the problem with the Bible, and its proponents - "Me or God either one of us'll offer you any respect, but you're just a big ol' meanie if you don't offer either one of us that which we refuse to offer to you".


Remove the insulting, slanderous language from your holy texts.


Then you just might have moral standing to expect me to respect your beliefs.


Until then, I'll "foolishly" point out that none can show a god even exists to consider folks "fools", and that those who'd promote the Bible should not expect any respect until they can learn to respect others.

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.

The existence of deity troubles me nowhere near as much as those who'd speak for it, only can't show they do.

'Specially when they tell me what a "fool" I am, 'cause I ain't offering up a level of respect they refuse to return to me.


Don't like having your beliefs and pet notions disrespected?


Don't promote disrepect for those who disagree.

(edit 'cause I accidentlied a word)

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.

[Elijah John]

. . ., why do you accept control of speech from the political Left, but not from a politically neutral perspective in matters of Spiritual terminology?.

Just taking this one point from your OP, Elijah John.
In what sense, and by which means and measures, does 'the political Left' exercise any control over your speech?
Middle class liberals certainly make recommendation with regard to avoiding terms people find offensive, and middle-class liberals (OK, maybe left-wing by US standards) certainly have access to significant sections of the means of propaganda, but there is nothing to prevent you ignoring all of them, if you are so inclined.
ISTM sometimes that people who complain that 'political correctness' is forbidding free expression reach this conclusion because they are in the habit of thinking in terms of authority and power; hence any effective argument seems to them like a command.
I strongly argue against the use of certain offensive terms, when I encounter them; and I am certainly a leftist (even by European standards!) But I am hugely amused when (for example) a 6ft skinhead complains that I am oppressing him when I call him out on the use of racist language.
Presenting an effective convincing argument against offensive language is not exercising oppression or control; it is engaging (successfully) in debate.

Well some on the Left, the extremist, are quick to level the charges "Hater" "Homophobe" and "Racists" when in fact we do not agree with their speech codes, or in some cases, their agenda. That is a form of ATTEMPED control, of course you are right, we can simply ignore them.

And just to clarify, NO ONE here is (as best as I can tell)is arguing for the right to use truely offensive language, such as the "N" word. Personally, I am just comparing the Left's INSISTANCE that we all use the latest verbiage, or term du jour, to comply with their speech standards.

And if they do that, why be offended if some of us Theists REQUEST a little bit of respect for our Deity (or at least for us believers) by perhaps the use of capitialization, or pronoungs in stead of the word "it" which denotes a "thing" or a concept at best.

But many of the same folks who insist we use politically correct speech are quick to show their contempt for our belief in the Deity by using the lowercase "i" as in "it" to refer to God.

Seems a double standard to me.

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 44 by Elijah John]

Take the beam out of your own eye. You asked us to change our speech about a nonexistence entity, then complain about having to temper hate speech toward real people?

What seems to be lost, is that this is a culture war, and there is no monolithic group on each side. We are all "sinners", no?

So why try to demonize your enemy for things your side does too?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 44 by Elijah John]

Take the beam out of your own eye. You asked us to change our speech about a nonexistence entity, then complain about having to temper hate speech toward real people?

What seems to be lost, is that this is a culture war, and there is no monolithic group on each side. We are all "sinners", no?

So why try to demonize your enemy for things your side does too?

Sophistry, Ooberman, and as an argument it defeats itself.

After all, y'all are demanding that people who (and pay attention here) do not believe that the position that gays hold is a viable one, or who disagree with the idea that people CAN be split into factions, or...whatever it is they disagree with, nevertheless use the verbiage y'all prefer because the people to whom they are speaking are 'real.'


At the same time you refuse to extend the same courtesy you demand, because...and are you following me here?...YOU don't believe that God is real.

So basically, it doesn't matter what the people you demand respect FROM think about the position you are taking, or that they may disagree with you about the amount of courtesy and respect those positions are due; because the gays or atheists or (insert group here) are people, they deserve to have their preferences honored.

In spite of the fact that they disagree with you on positions and ideas.

On the other hand, y'all feel no need to return the favor; you don't think that God is 'real,' and therefore you are not being impolite or discourteous when you demean the idea of Him (or Her, whatever) when speaking to believers

Because you disagree with them on positions and ideas.


If you are correct, that there is no deity to insult, then who, precisely, ARE you insulting? Who are the only folk around, in your view, to hear you? Why, by George, only people. Only believers. Who are people too.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 35 by Peter]

...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. And, to an extent, because believers has no sense of humor - at all. And to be fair, it's harder in the typed word to be understood as it's meant to be - some people with a guilty conscious tend to respond in an over necessary way to the typed word.
In the USA, it's because the PC crowd as infiltrated too many aspects of our lives. That and too many people are complainers - the squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say.

Really, why is religious belief so special that it deserves respect and must be handled with kid gloves?

It's not and it shouldn't be. But so many religious people demand respect from EVERYONE simply because of their belief in god.

It's a sad state of affairs, really.

IMO of course, from what I've experiences. I have no data to support this belief, just like christians have no data to support their beliefs
And said in general so as not to offend anyone...of course

[connermt]

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.

Excellent post!
Too many times, personal issues are presented in such a way as you described here. Too many times.
Your last point (... to compare the two groups to "check for consistency does not seem logical...") is only logical to the group/person/people that it benefits because, well, it benefits them. Too many people are biased to the point where they can't see logic for what it is.
The 'check for consistency' is mush like (when I believe it was John Kerry) made the comment of, something like, a 'world test' during the Presidential Debate several years ago.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 35 by Peter]

...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.

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

A majority?

OK, done. There are more non-believers on the moderating panel than believers.

If that doesn't satisfy you, perhaps you would prefer that the panel be entirely atheist/non-believer?

If so, you need to think about that one a moment.

If you will excuse my sad lack of a sense of humor here, perhaps you should check out your claims before you actually, y'know, make them?

As for me, if Jimmy Stewart sat down next to me and introduced me to Harvey, I would smile and politely say hello.

If an atheist prefers that I not pray in his living room, and discuss his theories of the reason for religion seriously, I won't pray and I'll discuss his ideas seriously.

Respecting the person with a nutty idea is not the same thing as supporting the idea. If you have a problem with theists, just pretend you are saying hello to Harvey. Jimmy will like you for it.

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 46 by dianaiad]

i am hoping that you can see the distinction for yourself, Di. You are an intelligent woman, and capable of honest reflection.
If I dismiss the Book of Mormon as codswallop, this is in no way dissing you as a person, (although you may feel that it is).
If I said (but I emphatically don't say!) that all or most members of the Church of Latter Day Saints are gullible idiots, you would be well within your rights to cry 'foul'! And to accuse me of disrespect.
You see there is a difference here?
If gays, lesbians, Blacks, Christians, Jains, (or whatever), tell me that the use of certain terminology is offensive to them, then I will try to avoid using those terms, as I have no intention of offending individual members of any group, as persons.

Personally, I choose not to use the N word, and I don't talk about 'poufs' or 'queers' or whatever, because I choose to avoid giving unnecessary offence to my fellow humans. This is not obligatory, it's just my choice.
But in a debating arena, ideas are not sacrosanct. Unlike human persons, ideas have, in my universe, no claim to protected status. Ideas are fair game, in a clearly-defined debating arena.
I use the capitalised God, and the capitalised and gendered He Him His, not to avoid giving offence, but for clarity, to indicate the Abrahamic god specifically.
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.

[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.