Regarding Christians [Archive]

justaman

12-25-2004, 05:10 AM

I noticed a comment recently in someone's blog from an apparently quite intelligent atheist who was being rather contemptuous of a Christian's belief.

I note that while there is a fairly strong contingent from CF here, the majority of people on this board appear to be atheists (like me incidentally). I wonder if this doesn't create a small problem.

What I mean is, if all we atheists are sticking together in the one forum, constantly agreeing with each other and becoming more and more convinced of our own intellectual righteousness, does this actually have a detrimental effect on our ability to be open-minded?

Glancing at the member's list of atheists who have come from CF, I recognise that not one of them has that acidic and presumptuous manner when dealing with Christians like the member who made the comment I noticed. I think this is probably because they have perhaps had more exposure to the Christian viewpoint and realise that Christians are - by and large - rational people like everyone else.

Specifically, people who use the word 'xian'. I've seen smart people do this. Why? What does it acheive? I remember I used to consciously write 'God' as 'god'. My reasoning being that there was no point to capitalizing the name of something which doesn't exist. I didn't like giving it even that small dignity. But then I later realised that really I was just being wantonly antagonising. The message I was sending was "I think you are stupid for giving significance to this particular belief". I think that is the same message people who write 'xian' are sending.

This appears to me immediately disingenous because many of those people who believe these things are not dumb. So - assuming one agrees with my logic - by writing 'xian', you are actually making yourself look silly. You are sending a message which is categorically false.

I think that is the danger of spending all of one's time in a forum like this, where there seem few Christians available to give their opinions. I think it is good to engage with Christians and converse with them not necessarily to change their mind, but to simply find out why they believe what they do. In doing this, we find that not only is the average Christian as rational as the average atheist, but some of them are far more intelligent than the average atheist. Scarier still, perhaps, some have rationales that are not only shrewd and insightful but (dare we ever admit it?) perhaps even more thoroughly expounded than our own.

Anyhow just some thoughts :)

Zatarra

12-25-2004, 06:17 AM

seebs

12-25-2004, 06:46 AM

We had a thread about xian vs. Christian (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1109).

FWIW, it's generally a good indicator of hostility, but it's also pretty low on the list of offensive stuff, and I personally never worry about it.

viscousmemories

12-25-2004, 06:58 AM

viscousmemories

12-25-2004, 07:07 AM

Oh and just a couple more thoughts about the OP: Yes, I do think some people here and everywhere fall into the trap of seeking out forums, threads and even posts or comments in posts that confirm their own beliefs and overlook legitimate challenges. It's called 'confirmation bias':

In psychology, confirmation bias is a phenomenon whereby, in a variety of settings, decision makers have been shown to notice more, assign more weight to, and actively seek out evidence that confirms their claims, and tend to ignore and not seek out evidence which might discount their claims. As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.

-source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)

And just to yank your chain a bit, I'm not a big fan of dividing the world into atheists and Christians, either. That seems a very narrow view of reality. :P

Dingfod

12-25-2004, 10:25 AM

Forget it, I don't know what I'm talking about. Surprised? Call 1-999-IAM-DUMB

justaman

12-25-2004, 12:43 PM

Actually this forum was intended to be more of a general discussion forum than a place for ideological debates. Not that we have anything against the latter, but we had no intention of competing with the other forums out there that were designed with that purpose in mind.
Sure, and I probably made it sound a little more confronting regarding the forum itself than I meant to. It was a trend I noticed in Darwin Awards which was where I first started posting to message boards, it seems not uncommon in infidels and I've seen an example of it from here. It's not something which is the fault of the forum or its particular aims, it is simply symptomatic of spending too much time in your comfort zone, I guess :P

I'm curious about the not competing thing you include. Obviously it's still a small forum at this stage, but it has all the categories for ideological debates and it's an attractive place to come to with its laidback attitude, especially for people like me from CF where everyone's so goddamn anal. It's well presented, well organised and - speaking again from a purely CF point of view - you've already attracted some pretty big names, so there can't be anything wrong with the advertising. I'd be surprised if it wasn't competing with your mainstream philosophy forums as time goes on and numbers keep growing.

Livius and I started our forum involvement at the Internet Infidels (http://www.iidb.org) site, so naturally when we started this forum the majority of the people we invited were members there. Some other of our members come from the JREF (http://forums.randi.org) forum and Skeptical Community (http://www.skepticalcommunity.com). That and the fact that 'freethought' is commonly associated with atheism is probably why a lot of the members here are non-religious. However there are more than a few members here who have religious beliefs, and overall I agree that the members here aren't hostile to them.
And that was something else I probably didn't make very clear. I'm certainly not suggesting anything but a small minority are being disingenuously hostile, but I am interested as to what it is that makes someone so malicious and contemptuous in their consideration of theistic belief. The answer I'm coming to is ignorance, and no atheist in the world likes being accused of that, I think.

And just to yank your chain a bit, I'm not a big fan of dividing the world into atheists and Christians, either. That seems a very narrow view of reality.
Actually this (the first part of the first sentence) is why I don't spend nearly as much time in infidels as I do in CF. I think I prefer chain-yanking to agreeing with everyone. :D

As to the content of what your saying, I'm not dividing the 'world' into atheist and Christian, I'm dividing theological discussions into atheists and Christians in the context of an atheist using the term 'xian'. In reality, it's probably more atheist vs theist, but yeah. Given that the point is incredulity regarding the belief in the supernatural, I don't think an atheist vs theist dichotomy is terribly inaccurate. :P

viscousmemories

12-25-2004, 10:06 PM

I spent a long time composing a very detailed response, but at some point near the end it occurred to me that I was just rambling and apparently not quite sure what I was trying to say. So let me just say I didn't take your OP as critical of the forum at all and I think we largely agree about the importance - to anyone who values thinking critically - of staying open to alternative points of view. I also appreciate the nice things you have to say about this place and I'm glad you like it. :yup:

Adora

12-26-2004, 01:23 AM

Socratoad

12-26-2004, 02:40 AM

Gawen

12-26-2004, 03:20 AM

Here's my take on it.

I'm certainly not suggesting anything but a small minority are being disingenuously hostile, but I am interested as to what it is that makes someone so malicious and contemptuous in their consideration of theistic belief. Methinks you are going to find "hostility" on any forum you visit or any 'side' you explore. Disingenuous will apply to only a portion of the people you meet, regardless of THEIR reasons for being hostile. What makes people malicious and contemptuous? You're gonna have to ask them. I'm sure there's a plethora of reasons.

It's not something which is the fault of the forum or its particular aims, it is simply symptomatic of spending too much time in your comfort zone, I guess. Joking aside, it's called communal reinforcement. People generally strive to be with people that like or believe the same things. It's no different for a Christian to go to church or post in Christian forums then for Atheists to congregate here or monthly meetings..

Actually this (the first part of the first sentence) is why I don't spend nearly as much time in infidels as I do in CF. I think I prefer chain-yanking to agreeing with everyone. Wherever you're comfy. I spend time in infidel forums because I'm learning. And I like the people in the forums, for the most part. And I've made some great friends. When I become confident in my knowledge, mayhaps I will visit CF's. However, I find that unlikely, for I haven't the stomach for it. I see enough theists in the forums I'm already posting in.

As for using Xtian or lower-case 'g' for god, I do it sometimes. Usually the upper-case is to denote the Christian God over other gods in a particular discussion. So how disingenuous is that, snubbing what may be someone else's god over the Christian one? As of late, I've been using lower-case 'g's for all uses for god. To me, Xtian is just a short form. Does it matter if I write it out long form or shorten it? I really don't care.

This appears to me immediately disingenous because many of those people who believe these things are not dumb. There's quite a few smart theists. And successful as well. There are some people who would label a wealthy or well off Christian as....disingenuous, even some other Christians.

So you see, sauce for the goose. You're going to find the whole gamet of emotions from both sides of the camp. I just prefer to spend my time in this camp.

justaman

12-26-2004, 12:06 PM

Thanks Adora, I had been wondering how to answer this inane complaint. You have done it for me. I try my best to show respect towards others, but I'll be damned if I can muster enough hypocrisy to show respect towards whatever sky fairy they are peddling.
You sort of sound like precisely the kind of individual I'm talking about :cool:

I don't know if it's about showing respect to sky-fairies so much as showing respect for people's belief in sky-fairies. Calling it 'hypocrisy' isn't just counter-productive, it's completely out of context. It's not hypocritical to realise not everyone is going to agree with you about everything. Especially regarding things which cannot be proven one way or the other.

Also, be a dear and explain how my complaint is 'inane'.

justaman

12-26-2004, 12:28 PM

You think we do this on this forum?

Pffft. You may want to spend a bit more time here...
You tell me no one does this, then socratoad does it in the next post. That's funny :yup:

*goes cross eyed* "Everyone-else" people are rational? Why didn't I get this memo?
¿Que?

And yet other people do it for other reasons. I use the word "god" because it reminds people that their chosen deity is not the only deity you can believe in, that their religion is not special in some way in the history of the world, and that they don't have a monopoly on the concept.
I.e, you do it to antagonise.

Consider yourself as a Christian (you can put on funny little hat if you like). You believe it's important to use the capital G and this atheist is pointedly refusing. Do you think to yourself "Hey, I guess they're right, I guess my religion isn't that special", or do you think "this atheist is an asshole. An antagonising asshole, no less."

The point is it's counter-productive. That might be your goal, if so awesome, but in that case you're no better than the pentacostal nutter who thinks all atheists are demons or something. You are writing off billions of people as being stupid. They aren't all stupid.

I'd do this whether I was a believer or an atheist- it wouldn't matter. I mean, it's basic logic, and it points out I don't buy into their propaganda about how "speshul" they are.
Yeah man. I bet if you were a believer that's exactly what you'd do. You'd probably also burn some Bibles, just to remind your congregation "Hey, you know we might be wrong about this."

True, and yet Sturgeon's Law is infinitely applicable.
Best you never cross paths with someone from the 10% then, hey?

And really, I don't see any point to constantly hanging around theological-realted boards all the time, because y'know, once you've seen one thread on the extistence of a supernatural power, you've seen them all.
Clearly you need to spend more time around theology-related boards :)

It gets painfully monotonous. And so many times I yearn for a "Stop Making My Side Look Stupid" sign to bash atheists over the head with.
I'm curious in what scenario you would see yourself requiring this.

justaman

12-26-2004, 12:54 PM

Methinks you are going to find "hostility" on any forum you visit or any 'side' you explore. Disingenuous will apply to only a portion of the people you meet, regardless of THEIR reasons for being hostile. What makes people malicious and contemptuous? You're gonna have to ask them. I'm sure there's a plethora of reasons.
Well that - to some degree - is an inherent aim of this thread...

Joking aside, it's called communal reinforcement. People generally strive to be with people that like or believe the same things. It's no different for a Christian to go to church or post in Christian forums then for Atheists to congregate here or monthly meetings..
Sure, and I don't think this is an especially good idea in the context of learning for either side. When scientists come up with theories, they must be falsifiable. They aren't allowed to come up with a theory and avoid all possible confrontation with that theory.

Wherever you're comfy. I spend time in infidel forums because I'm learning. And I like the people in the forums, for the most part. And I've made some great friends. When I become confident in my knowledge, mayhaps I will visit CF's. However, I find that unlikely, for I haven't the stomach for it. I see enough theists in the forums I'm already posting in.
It's not for everyone. I do have a pathalogical need to argue, I think. But I think it's healthy to test yourself and findout whether the degree of confidence with which you hold your personal beliefs is warranted.

As for using Xtian or lower-case 'g' for god, I do it sometimes. Usually the upper-case is to denote the Christian God over other gods in a particular discussion.
This is absolutely not what i'm talking about. I'm not trying to suggest the very word is holy. It's specifically when you are talking about the Christian God, where the word is a recognised proper noun.

So how disingenuous is that, snubbing what may be someone else's god over the Christian one?
No other gods are named 'God', so this isn't really relevant.

As of late, I've been using lower-case 'g's for all uses for god. To me, Xtian is just a short form. Does it matter if I write it out long form or shorten it? I really don't care.
wll y don we al jst rite evthng abrv as in txt msg spk?

It's five extra character strokes, dude, and 'xian' isn't a word :)

If you only say 'xian' because it's shorter - if shortness is the priority here - why are you saying 'Christian' now? In fact I can't see any words in this entire post that you shortened! Surely there's some areas you could cut down a little to save time and space. There must be something you could do with 'disingenuous'...and you wrote it like three times! Must've taken forever ;)

Man I'm screwing around, I hear you, I write LOTR like everyone else, but I think 'xian' is always going to be somewhat more loaded.

And I don't bring this up out of sympathy for Christians, by the way. I'm pointing it out because I think it makes atheists look silly. I don't like using Adora's sign, you see.

There's quite a few smart theists. And successful as well. There are some people who would label a wealthy or well off Christian as....disingenuous, even some other Christians.
Well none of this is reeeeally relevant.

So you see, sauce for the goose.
How any of the above leads to this analogy I don't quite grasp but yeah :)

seebs

12-26-2004, 01:25 PM

As someone who habitually uses capital letters when referring to my particular sky-fairy, I'd like to point out that, whether it's culturally rational or not, the word "God" (capital-G) is a proper noun in English, and is not merely a "respectful" way of writing "god". The word "god" is a generic noun, and could refer to pretty much any kind of divinity. The word "God", for better or worse, refers to monotheist conceptions of a single Creator.

So, whether it's antagonistic or not... If you write "god", I assume you are talking about the generalized set of all possible conceptions of the divine, ranging from Shinto-style place or ancestor spirits through personalized and interventionistic omnipotent creators.

As to the question of respect... I think phrases like "whatever sky-fairy they're peddling" start out by assuming a number of things about religious people, not all of which are true...

Socratoad

12-26-2004, 01:48 PM

I don't know if it's about showing respect to sky-fairies so much as showing respect for people's belief in sky-fairies. Calling it 'hypocrisy' isn't just counter-productive, it's completely out of context. It's not hypocritical to realize not everyone is going to agree with you about everything. Especially regarding things which cannot be proved one way or the other.

Also, be a dear and explain how my complaint is 'inane'.[/QUOTE]

I do not disrespect yours or anybody else's right to believe in any deity/deities.

What I meant by hypocrisy would be if I pretended to respect said Deity/deities.

One cannot force oneself to respect something.

As for me calling your complaint inane. Well I think it is just that.

For example:

Noun god
(1) Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.

(2) A man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people.

(3) A material effigy that is worshipped as a god.

And so what is your complaint regarding invisible entities or non-entities being referred to as god rather than God?

If you are a believer than tis your right to capitalize the word, otherwise ......

Same with the term xian. I'm not on quite as firm ground here as that may be being used as a term denoting disdain. Personally I have always thought Xian was and is a city in China. But hey, get used to it. I am assuming that you are an american, if so you must be well aware that atheists, agnostics, and very often believers of other faiths are held in disdain in the highest of circles, and so tis only human to bite back from time to time.

Oh, lest I forget ...... God being a proper noun and other such arbitrary rules. Your nation pronounces itself to be "one nation under God" which it is certainly not, and so I feel the same way about capitalizing the word god.

Further more before I close my part in this discussion, unless it is your wish to speak about other fictitious entities, ever since I was a small child it has sickened me to have presumably adult person constantly and either arrogantly or ignorantly speak to me of God, not their god, but God, as if it is a indisputable fact that this entity exists.

And so in closing, worship what you will, but please stop complaining about those that do not share your beliefs or delusions.

PS: I apologize for my formatting or rather lack thereof. I just crawled out of bed and so definitely did something wrong.

justaman

12-26-2004, 02:45 PM

I do not disrespect yours or anybody else's right to believe in any deity/deities.

What I meant by hypocrisy would be if I pretended to respect said Deity/deities.

One cannot force oneself to respect something.
Quite. But this isn't hyopcrisy it's a logical impossibility. You can't respect something you don't believe in any more than you can sing a song you don't know.

But I will repeat what I said in my antecedent: It is not about disrespecting God, it is about disrespecting other's beliefs in God. If you don't think God exists, then it is the latter which you are doing by definition. (Though that's also assuming that he doesn't, in fact, exist and isn't, in fact, insulted. But those are assumptions I don't think you'll have any trouble making).

As for me calling your complaint inane. Well I think it is just that.

For example:

Noun god
(1) Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.

(2) A man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people.

(3) A material effigy that is worshipped as a god.

And so what is your complaint regarding invisible entities or non-entities being referred to as god rather than God?
Are you going to explain why you didn't include a dictionary entry for "God" the proper noun? Do you spell your first name with a lower case letter because you are also a 'person'?

If you are a believer than tis your right to capitalize the word, otherwise ......
So you must be a Christian to use proper English? This is why I think your argument makes you look a bit silly, you see. Like it or not, 'God' is a recognised word. I'd like to ignore the fact that 'Carlton' is a word, but we simply can't all have it our way.

*looks around for David Gould*

Seriously, do you spell it 'john rambo' because he's fictional?

Same with the term xian. I'm not on quite as firm ground here as that may be being used as a term denoting disdain.
Well whether it is or isn't, I think that there is the potential for this to be the light in which it is viewed in to warrant avoiding it, I think.

Personally I have always thought Xian was and is a city in China. But hey, get used to it. I am assuming that you are an american, if so you must be well aware that atheists, agnostics, and very often believers of other faiths are held in disdain in the highest of circles, and so tis only human to bite back from time to time.
Actually I live in Australia and I have heard some stories (from school at least) of atheists being ostracised and in fact quite seriously bullied by Christians in some middle-American schools. If that is your story, i suppose I can understand a degree of resentment.

But if a dog bites you, I'm not sure that biting it back is always the most effective course of action.

Oh, lest I forget ...... God being a proper noun and other such arbitrary rules. Your nation pronounces itself to be "one nation under God" which it is certainly not, and so I feel the same way about capitalizing the word god.
So you aren't American? Wherefore the resentment then?

Further more before I close my part in this discussion, unless it is your wish to speak about other fictitious entities, ever since I was a small child it has sickened me to have presumably adult person constantly and either arrogantly or ignorantly speak to me of God, not their god, but God, as if it is a indisputable fact that this entity exists.
Sickened, ey? You were a small child sickened by what adults - much smarter and more knowledgeable than yourself - were concluding.

I take it all back you sound very objective :P

I'm thinking about flaring up into devil's advocate mode and challenging your certainty that God is impossible. Even if I couldn't turn your arguments on their head - and I think I could...hey I back myself - at least, it is very easily demonstrated that belief is not irrational.

And so in closing, worship what you will, but please stop complaining about those that do not share your beliefs or delusions.
Ah, I see you didn't read what I initially wrote.

I'm not a Christian.

...now imagine she's white.

PS: I apologize for my formatting or rather lack thereof. I just crawled out of bed and so definitely did something wrong.
Nup, twas fine.

Socratoad

12-26-2004, 03:40 PM

rereading your posts very carefully methinks that regarding empathy and other such values I do not think we are so far apart. Actually I consider myself to be an agnostic. If my points have not been clearly enough annunciated it is because my mind is elsewhere. Namely the horrendous disaster in your part of the world, albeit not in Australia, although no doubt you will be affected by it.

With respect I really have no desire to further delve into our different perceptions regarding religion, and Christianity in particular. Suffice to say I was raised in a very pious community and have read both testaments through cover to cover, twice, plus much research into biblical studies. That part of my life is long over. I did this in order to try and understand why others did believe.

It may seem strange to many, but I never was capable of believing. Even as a small child in Sunday school and church I used to peek out between my fingers when we were supposed to be praying. I thought to myself that surely this was some sort of fictional game that adults must be playing to scare the hell out of us children and thus keep them in line. I made the mistake of confiding my thoughts to some of my schoolmates, only to have my confidences leak back to adults. I was beaten to within an inch of my life, and much more than just once or twice. I tell you this so that you might try to understand from where my viewpoints have originated.

Cheers

justaman

12-26-2004, 04:27 PM

Actually I consider myself to be an agnostic.
Say again, over?

Socratoad

12-26-2004, 04:51 PM

Actually I consider myself to be an agnostic.
Say again, over?

Granted that is my own definition. Yes I do not believe, but seeing that I recognize the futility of trying to prove the unprovable I choose not to waste my time doing so. In that respect many atheists are just as guilty as theists in trying to prove their own beliefs. To me that is the same as empty philosophical arguments about just how many angels might safely dance upon the point of a pin.

Technically, yes I'm an atheist, but have chosen the term agnostic in describing myself, cuz over at IIDB and other boards so many atheists border on being evangelical in their fervency.

I am a philosopher and have written much, mainly moral philosophy. I have a large tome partly written for which the advance from the publisher has long been spent, and yet because of recent heart attacks, etc I fear I shall never finish this . But I fear not near so much as my publisher.

The reason I tell you this is because you are probably shocked by me calling myself an agnostic. Its because ever since the beginning of the written word philosophers have ofttimes defined or redefined therms to fit in with their premise and so do I. Not very disciplined you might say, however so be it. As long as in the overall writings one clarifies what one means.

Now I really must rest. I have typed more in the last two days than I have in months.

As I try to recover I try my best to stick to non-controversial subjects and even then stick to short snappy answers.

For instance I had planned on writing a long detailed essay on why I'm against the death penalty. Alas after trying to explain myself here on this thread I realize that it would not be wise for me to push myself. My left arm is numb.

I don't want anyone to worry. I just must resist the urge to post in depth.

livius drusus

12-26-2004, 04:51 PM

What I mean is, if all we atheists are sticking together in the one forum, constantly agreeing with each other and becoming more and more convinced of our own intellectual righteousness, does this actually have a detrimental effect on our ability to be open-minded?

I think it does, yes. It's one of the main reasons I no longer participate avidly at IIDB. At a certain point, the overwhelming one-sidedness of the discussions, the endless self-congratulation, not only bored me to tears, but also put the lie to any notion of genuine exploration.

This self-reinforcement had the side-effect - particularly in GRD, the forum I used to moderate - of generating thread after stultifying thread which were basically vents about how horrid Christianity is, how freakish some fundamentalist or another is, how vile the concept of hell, heaven, original sin, fill in the blank. Editorials at best, and not good ones. Actual religious discussions were few and far between.

Needless to say, vm and I were not remotely interested in creating a moist and fertile environment to nuture that kind of crap. There are plenty of other venues for spleen venting. We started this site to engage in real discussions, to look at an issue from all possible sides. That's what freethought means to us.

Glancing at the member's list of atheists who have come from CF, I recognise that not one of them has that acidic and presumptuous manner when dealing with Christians like the member who made the comment I noticed. I think this is probably because they have perhaps had more exposure to the Christian viewpoint and realise that Christians are - by and large - rational people like everyone else.

That might be the reason. Honestly, I can't say I've ever seen a justification for treating Christians like retarded children or vicious brutes that made any sense at all. Just like I've never seen an atheist actually make a rational argument for the oft-stated Christians are mentally ill because they believe in something that doesn't exist shibboleth.

I suspect it's more of a visceral reaction than anything else, which is why even Christians who have shown themselves to be eminently rational (and courteous and forebearing and well-read and generally brilliant) like seebs or jbernier still get talked to by many on IIDB like they're idiots or assholes. Their ability to reason is not the crux of the matter. Their interlocutors' personal issues are.

Specifically, people who use the word 'xian'. I've seen smart people do this. Why? What does it acheive? I remember I used to consciously write 'God' as 'god'. My reasoning being that there was no point to capitalizing the name of something which doesn't exist. I didn't like giving it even that small dignity. But then I later realised that really I was just being wantonly antagonising. The message I was sending was "I think you are stupid for giving significance to this particular belief". I think that is the same message people who write 'xian' are sending.

That's certainly true for some people. As I said in the xian v. Christian thread, I used "xian" and "Jebus" or "gog" because I thought I was quite the wit, and there was definitely an I'm smarter than you snobbery involved. Some people are just into shorthand and no caps, but truth be told, I think that's a very tiny group. I've seen people use xian who never use any other kind of contrived abbreviation and who are perfectly fine using initial caps for every other proper noun.

I think that is the danger of spending all of one's time in a forum like this, where there seem few Christians available to give their opinions. I think it is good to engage with Christians and converse with them not necessarily to change their mind, but to simply find out why they believe what they do. In doing this, we find that not only is the average Christian as rational as the average atheist, but some of them are far more intelligent than the average atheist. Scarier still, perhaps, some have rationales that are not only shrewd and insightful but (dare we ever admit it?) perhaps even more thoroughly expounded than our own.

True that, although I would suggest that it doesn't have to be forum participation that exposes us to those insightful rationales more carefully thought out than our own. There are books and webites galore, and I think most people know Christians in their daily life who have the same range of intelligence and reasoning as atheists.

Thank you for starting this thread, justaman. :yup:

livius drusus

12-26-2004, 04:57 PM

Ugh. Be careful, Toad. No numb arms. Don't make me get my nag on. :hug:

wade-w

12-26-2004, 05:22 PM

Well, as to agnostic vs atheist, the two are not mutually exclusive. I consider myself both an agnostic and an atheist. I am an atheist because I lack a belief in any deity or deities. I am an agnostic because I do not know whether or not there is some sort of god; I could be mistaken in my lack of belief. As far as that goes, I don't think it is possible to know whether the EoG is true or false.

As for "xian" vs "Christian", I first encountered that particular spelling over at II. At first, I saw it as no different than xmas; it was just a convenient abbreviation, and I used it as such. Then I realized that for most it was indeed being used as a term of scorn and derision. Yeah, I know, I can be kind of slow at times. Anyway, I stopped using it once it dawned on me that in that context it was probably being seen by Christians as a sign of disrespect. As for capitalization, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I should probably make more of an effort to do, for the same reasons I no longer use "xian" in general discourse.

I know some Christians that are deserving of much respect, and I know atheists who have earned my contempt. Not all Christians are fanatics, nor are all atheists reasonable people. And in case you are wondering, no, there is no one to one correspondence there either. But I am far less likely to respect a fanatic of any stripe, and there most definitely are atheistic fanatics.

I avoid theological fora as much as possible. I moderated the cess pool that is General Religious Discussions at IIDB for the better part of a year; that experience soured me on such fora for life. IIDB is much more than the GRD and BC&H fora, however. I never set foot in either of those two fora, but I go to the Philosophy, E/C and S&S fora over there on a daily basis.

livius drusus

12-26-2004, 05:42 PM

I avoid theological fora as much as possible. I moderated the cess pool that is General Religious Discussions at IIDB for the better part of a year; that experience soured me on such fora for life.

Amen, brother. :chestram:

seebs

12-26-2004, 10:13 PM

Oh, lest I forget ...... God being a proper noun and other such arbitrary rules. Your nation pronounces itself to be "one nation under God" which it is certainly not, and so I feel the same way about capitalizing the word god.

You're not getting it. Whether or not God exists is not at issue. The word "God" refers to a specific entity, and the word "god" refers to a class of entities.

The mere fact that I don't believe that the subgenii are right doesn't mean I should refer to "bob" because I don't think there's any such person. The word "Bob" is a proper noun, even if it has no referent.

This isn't theology, it's grammar.

Further more before I close my part in this discussion, unless it is your wish to speak about other fictitious entities, ever since I was a small child it has sickened me to have presumably adult person constantly and either arrogantly or ignorantly speak to me of God, not their god, but God, as if it is a indisputable fact that this entity exists.

You are misunderstanding the way language works. Discussions of fictitious persons nonetheless use capital letters for their names. Doesn't matter whether God exists or not; as a matter of grammar, a proper noun gets capitalized.

seebs

12-26-2004, 10:31 PM

That's certainly true for some people. As I said in the xian v. Christian thread, I used "xian" and "Jebus" or "gog" because I thought I was quite the wit, and there was definitely an I'm smarter than you snobbery involved.

Heh. I particularly love that people who say "Jebus", carefully imitating a genuine cultural avatar of stupidity, are often doing it to show how smart they are.

godfry n. glad

12-26-2004, 10:33 PM

You are misunderstanding the way language works. Discussions of fictitious persons nonetheless use capital letters for their names. Doesn't matter whether God exists or not; as a matter of grammar, a proper noun gets capitalized.

Excuse me... I am not. I use "god" because it's inclusive of your "God", as well as any other god with any other name the worshippers might desire to call it. Please read it that way. It's entirely grammatical. I know fully well how the language works.

godfry

seebs

12-26-2004, 10:40 PM

godfry n. glad

12-26-2004, 10:52 PM

I don't believe in your god.

The construction is just fine. I use "your" or "any" a lot in these kinds of discussions.

You're saying that this word, when capitalized, is a proper noun? A name?

godfry

seebs

12-26-2004, 11:04 PM

lisarea

12-26-2004, 11:13 PM

Heh. I particularly love that people who say "Jebus", carefully imitating a genuine cultural avatar of stupidity, are often doing it to show how smart they are.

I think I've always seen it done as a parody. People don't usually use it to talk about Jesus, but to parody people who go around yelling about Jesus all the time out of context. And yeah, there's probably some contempt there. I know I can tend to get a little contemptuous when people are shoving religion down my throat a lot. It doesn't happen often, but it happens. If I'm being harassed at work by Christians, if I'm getting a bunch of glurge telling me I should leave my country for not being Christian, or something like that, I am likely to use certain dismissive kind of terminology just to piss people off, because I resent those Christians who go to such great lengths to put their belief system in the spotlight, and then turn around and complain when everyone doesn't treat it as reverentially as they do. I rarely do that kind of thing in a public forum, though. I tend to direct it at the actual people I want to offend.

But if I'm experiencing a whole lot of it at a given time, I'm not above using the scattershot approach until I cool off a little.

It isn't nice, and it isn't fair, IMO, but I do understand the motivation, I think.

I don't believe in your god.

The construction is just fine. I use "your" or "any" a lot in these kinds of discussions.

You're saying that this word, when capitalized, is a proper noun? A name?

It follows the same rules as any title. So, you'd style it the same way you would a term such as governor or prince or leiutenant or something.

So, you'd use:

I saw Cap'n Crunch today.
I just ran into the Cap'n.
I am so mad at the God Yahweh for giving me this canker sore.
This morning, God gave me a canker sore.

to use it as an official title, referring to a specific guy.

And you'd use:

Jedediah Crunch is the captain of that ship over there.
Yahweh is the god who hid my keys under the bread bag.

to use it as a descriptive term, or as a title that isn't referring to a specific guy.

godfry n. glad

12-26-2004, 11:24 PM

I don't believe in your god.

The construction is just fine. I use "your" or "any" a lot in these kinds of discussions.

Sure. That's grammatically correct.

You're saying that this word, when capitalized, is a proper noun? A name?

Yes. That's the point of capitalizing it.

So, his (its) name is "God"? And all this time I thought is was impolite to pronounce his name aloud...and I thought it was something like YHWH.

I don't think you even know your god's name, but have, as a matter of conceit, conscripted the English term for any number of superhuman constructs as a new name for yours. It presumes that because you and yours say that your god is "the" god...the one and only god...then "god" necessarily refers to your god and since no other can use that name rightfully in your eyes, that it therefore has the significance of a name.

I disagree.

I think it's no different than calling Jake the plumber, Jake The Plumber. He may be "The Plumber" to you, but he's still a plumber to me. I see no reason to acquiesce to your conceit.

godfry

seebs

12-26-2004, 11:40 PM

So, his (its) name is "God"?

More of a title.

And all this time I thought is was impolite to pronounce his name aloud...and I thought it was something like YHWH.

There is a great deal of speculation.

I don't think you even know your god's name, but have, as a matter of conceit, conscripted the English term for any number of superhuman constructs as a new name for yours. It presumes that because you and yours say that your god is "the" god...the one and only god...then "god" necessarily refers to your god and since no other can use that name rightfully in your eyes, that it therefore has the significance of a name.

That may be the etymology, but it doesn't matter now; the term is a title with the magic qualities that titles have, one of which is that, when it's used in that fashion, it gets capitalized.

I think it's no different than calling Jake the plumber, Jake The Plumber. He may be "The Plumber" to you, but he's still a plumber to me. I see no reason to acquiesce to your conceit.

It's not a question of conceit, it's a question of historical usage. You might as well reject spelling, or the notion that the noun before a transitive verb is the subject, and the noun after it the object. It's part of the language. (For a more controversial example, you might as well assert that in old writing, every single usage of the pronoun "he" was intended to specifically exclude women from consideration, even though we know it's not always the case.)

godfry n. glad

12-27-2004, 12:11 AM

So, his (its) name is "God"?

More of a title.

First it's a name, now it's a title. Mmmm-hmmmm.

I don't think you even know your god's name, but have, as a matter of conceit, conscripted the English term for any number of superhuman constructs as a new name for yours. It presumes that because you and yours say that your god is "the" god...the one and only god...then "god" necessarily refers to your god and since no other can use that name rightfully in your eyes, that it therefore has the significance of a name.

That may be the etymology, but it doesn't matter now; the term is a title with the magic qualities that titles have, one of which is that, when it's used in that fashion, it gets capitalized.

Oh... And it doesn't matter now for what reason? Because the users of the capitalized term are now numerous enough that their failure to properly use an article has deformed the language? That's my guess. As for titles, it's my experience that they are capitalized when used in context with the name of the title holder. Thus, "That is Captain Spaulding," becomes "That is the (or a) captain," not "That is Captain."

I think it's no different than calling Jake the plumber, Jake The Plumber. He may be "The Plumber" to you, but he's still a plumber to me. I see no reason to acquiesce to your conceit.

It's not a question of conceit, it's a question of historical usage. You might as well reject spelling, or the notion that the noun before a transitive verb is the subject, and the noun after it the object. It's part of the language. (For a more controversial example, you might as well assert that in old writing, every single usage of the pronoun "he" was intended to specifically exclude women from consideration, even though we know it's not always the case.)

Ah, but it is a conceit. It is a conceit of those who use the term; an historical conceit, if you so wish. If the believers refuse to use proper articles, I'm suppose to capitalize their mistakes?

godfry

Adora

12-27-2004, 01:06 AM

You tell me no one does this, then socratoad does it in the next post. That's funny :yup:
No, it's not funny. You said constantly agreeing with each other. And as I mentioned, if you hang around this forum enough, you'll realise this is far from the case. Also, you're assuming that just because someone agrees with someone else, they're "convinced of their own intellectual righteousness", whatever the fuck that means. I mean, really, non-sequitor, much?

I.e, you do it to antagonise.
No, I do it because that's what I believe. If it antagonises some other people, that is not my problem. If it protagonises other people, that is also not my problem.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I use "god", but 99% of the time I use the phrase "your god" or "this god" or "that god". "The Christian god" or whatever. I don't say "And god came down from the heavens" if I'm quoting or something like that, because it's just stupid. Sure, sometimes I slip up, but usually when I am drunk or tired. But there's always the qualifier before the word "god" because to just use the term "god" begs the question "Which one?". You can say "his god" or "her god" or "their god" but just saying "god" makes you look like a bigger idiot than any psychotic Promise Keepers or Super Apostles.

It's the same as my refusal to use "him" or "Lord" or "The Almighty" for feminist reasons (unless when discussing the legendary Jesus figure, who is referred to as "him" or "he" etc). If they want to argue it, I can point out that even branches of modern Christianity are doing away with patriachal garbage, so why can't I? It maks no sense in the first place to refer to an infinite thing by such a limited term anyway.

or do you think "this atheist is an asshole. An antagonising asshole, no less."
... And you speak for all Christians how now? Because I've really never encountered this problem with my refusal to use capitalisation of one word. You seem to be the only person I've ever encountered with a problem with it.

You are writing off billions of people as being stupid.
How am I doing that, exactly? I never said people were stupid for believing their deity is speshul. I never said they were stupid for believing their deity is the only "true" deity. I'm simply asserting my right to disagree with them. I think they're stupid when they do other things which are rarely ever connected to their belief in a deity (though they may pass it off as having a connection).

But obviously, you're not applying Earth Logic here.

Yeah man. I bet if you were a believer that's exactly what you'd do. You'd probably also burn some Bibles, just to remind your congregation "Hey, you know we might be wrong about this."
WTF? Sliding scale whut now? Are you on crack?

Best you never cross paths with someone from the 10% then, hey?
Er, no, the people I know and consider to reside within that 10%, no matter what deity they believe in, are very special people to me. Seriously, your arguments follow about as well as US "Intelligence" does...

Clearly you need to spend more time around theology-related boards :)
No, I don't. Which, from what I could gather, if exactly what you are saying. I've been at boards which were Buddhist-dominated. I've been at boards that are Christian-dominated. I've been at boards that are Jewish-dominated. Nothing changes.

I'm curious in what scenario you would see yourself requiring this.
"Atheist" arguments that say "Nothing has a soul, therefore there's no problem with abortions", when the poster also refuses to discuss the role of women's rights. Along the same lines, arguments about capital punishment that go the same way, which refuse to acknowledge cultural context, flawed justice systems or violations of human rights. There are other discussions as well, but these are just some examples.

For the record, I also consider myself an agnostic atheist.

justaman

12-27-2004, 01:29 AM

Actually I consider myself to be an agnostic.
Say again, over?

Granted that is my own definition. Yes I do not believe, but seeing that I recognize the futility of trying to prove the unprovable I choose not to waste my time doing so. In that respect many atheists are just as guilty as theists in trying to prove their own beliefs. To me that is the same as empty philosophical arguments about just how many angels might safely dance upon the point of a pin.

Technically, yes I'm an atheist, but have chosen the term agnostic in describing myself, cuz over at IIDB and other boards so many atheists border on being evangelical in their fervency.
Ah, ok, got it. You are, I think, a weak-atheist like myself as opposed to a strong-atheist. I haven't actually seen a good argument for strong-atheism yet.

And you are quite right to use agnostic also, as weak-atheism can be used virtually interchangably with agnosticism in this context. I generally (and in this case) view 'agnostic' as being someone who lends equal (or thereabouts) probabilility to God existing or God not existing. I think this is the more widely understood definition, but your usage is no less correct from my understanding, just less common.

As long as in the overall writings one clarifies what one means.
That's fair enough, I guess I just don't understand how one goes from writing tomes on philosophy to championing incorrect grammar. I also really don't get how you can describe yourself as an agnostic - and in doing so admit a level of subjective uncertainty in an objective universe - and yet describe yourself as 'sickened' by theistic belief. I don't know you, of course, but you understand why this appears contradictory to me...

Now I really must rest. I have typed more in the last two days than I have in months.

For instance I had planned on writing a long detailed essay on why I'm against the death penalty. Alas after trying to explain myself here on this thread I realize that it would not be wise for me to push myself. My left arm is numb.
Well Jesus Christ dude I might not agree with you very much but I don't want to kill you. Take it easy already.

I don't want anyone to worry. I just must resist the urge to post in depth.
Well avoid also, I'd suggest, calling J man's posts 'inane' :)

It's official, folks. Disagree with me and I may kill you.

Socratoad

12-27-2004, 01:43 AM

It's official, folks. Disagree with me and I may kill you.

Don't flatter yourself, and if you should have a couple of heart attacks someday I promise to overlook the odd grammatical mistake :wave:

justaman

12-27-2004, 01:44 AM

Needless to say, vm and I were not remotely interested in creating a moist and fertile environment to nuture that kind of crap. There are plenty of other venues for spleen venting. We started this site to engage in real discussions, to look at an issue from all possible sides. That's what freethought means to us.
I truly hope that this dream is realised on an appropriately large scale, it's a very good idea.

I suspect it's more of a visceral reaction than anything else, which is why even Christians who have shown themselves to be eminently rational (and courteous and forebearing and well-read and generally brilliant) like seebs or jbernier still get talked to by many on IIDB like they're idiots or assholes. Their ability to reason is not the crux of the matter. Their interlocutors' personal issues are.
I think this has a lot to do with it.

True that, although I would suggest that it doesn't have to be forum participation that exposes us to those insightful rationales more carefully thought out than our own. There are books and webites galore, and I think most people know Christians in their daily life who have the same range of intelligence and reasoning as atheists.
Absotively. I mean even I me occasionally get that small flutter of "Man I don't really want to read this post just in case he completely blows my precious reasoning out of the water..." but I think you've always got to read it.

Thank you for starting this thread, justaman.
Welcometh. Thank you for starting this forum.

seebs

12-27-2004, 01:47 AM

justaman

12-27-2004, 01:52 AM

It's official, folks. Disagree with me and I may kill you.

Don't flatter yourself, and if you should have a couple of heart attacks someday I promise to overlook the odd grammatical mistake :wave:
:D

godfry n. glad

12-27-2004, 02:02 AM

Ah, but it is a conceit. It is a conceit of those who use the term; an historical conceit, if you so wish. If the believers refuse to use proper articles, I'm suppose to capitalize their mistakes?

But it's not a mistake, any more than it's a mistake to refer to "Godfry" instead of "a godfry".

You don't have to agree with the implicit claim, but there is a real semantic difference between "god" and "God". Since there's a semantic difference, substituting one for the other is Bad Mojo.

Excuse me, but there may be a real semantic difference to you, but your god is just one of many gods to me and to claim the title and demand that it be capitalized is a conceit. It is an act of propaganda.

Bad mojo is something I have difficulty giving much credence, as well.

...and, I am not a godfry, but godfry. As in god free. I'm case-sensitive about it, too, because I'm just as free of all other gods as I am of yours.

godfry

justaman

12-27-2004, 02:18 AM

]
No, it's not funny. You said constantly agreeing with each other. And as I mentioned, if you hang around this forum enough, you'll realise this is far from the case.
Would you be happy with 'intermittently'? You said something doesn't happen on the forum and it happened the next post. You aren't going to be able to get around that :)

Also, you're assuming that just because someone agrees with someone else, they're "convinced of their own intellectual righteousness", whatever the fuck that means. I mean, really, non-sequitor, much?
sequitur.

It isn't what people set out to do, but it is a symptomatic consequence of only talking with people who agree with you. That can only reinforce your beliefs.

And I think intellectual righteousness is a wonderful way of describing the kind of arrogance I'm talking about. Have a look at some of Godfry's drivel here if you want to see a fine example :)

No, I do it because that's what I believe.
What do you believe in, incorrect grammar? 'God' is a proper noun in the context we're talking about. Do you go through the Greek pantheon spelling them zeus, hermes, hera, etc? Capitalised God is a name, there is no way around this fact.

If it antagonises some other people, that is not my problem. If it protagonises other people, that is also not my problem.
:D Tell me, how does it 'protagonise' others? Could you explain the process of 'protagonisation'?

You refuse to capitalise a word which grammatically requires it, and yet you are quite happy to make up words at a whim. That's funny too :yup:

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I use "god", but 99% of the time I use the phrase "your god" or "this god" or "that god". "The Christian god" or whatever. I don't say "And god came down from the heavens" if I'm quoting or something like that, because it's just stupid.
Well if this is the case, there's no problem and I question why you are arguing so vehemently. It's when you are referring to his name that you are required to. If you do that, take a gold star, your doing fine.

It's the same as my refusal to use "him" or "Lord" or "The Almighty" for feminist reasons (unless when discussing the legendary Jesus figure, who is referred to as "him" or "he" etc).
No, what I'm arguing is different to that, since it is grammatically acceptable to write either 'him' or 'Him'. Stephen Hawking, for instance, writes 'Him', mostly - I think - to try and do everything he can to prevent alienating his science from the religious (and thereby selling more books :P ). But this isn't something I ever do.

... And you speak for all Christians how now? Because I've really never encountered this problem with my refusal to use capitalisation of one word. You seem to be the only person I've ever encountered with a problem with it.
Again, my problem is that it makes my fellow atheists look silly. I'm not - personally - precisely offended by the usage ;)

How am I doing that, exactly? I never said people were stupid for believing their deity is speshul. I never said they were stupid for believing their deity is the only "true" deity. I'm simply asserting my right to disagree with them. I think they're stupid when they do other things which are rarely ever connected to their belief in a deity (though they may pass it off as having a connection).
Well once more I think you've completely misunderstood me, as I'm not suggesting all usages of the word 'god' require capitalisation. See Seebs' posts for clarification. That's what I'm talking about.

WTF? Sliding scale whut now? Are you on crack?
No, I was using an (amusing I thought) exaggeration to demonstrate the stupidity of your argument. But for the millionth time now, I'm no longer sure we disagree as I think you were confused with what I am and am not advocating warrants capital letters.

In fact I'm not answering any more of your post since I don't think we actually disagree.

justaman

12-27-2004, 02:29 AM

Sorry for jumping in but seebs isn't destroying you nearly as effectively as he should be :) He's losing his touch.

Excuse me, but there may be a real semantic difference to you, but your god is just one of many gods to me and to claim the title and demand that it be capitalized is a conceit. It is an act of propaganda.
No it's referring to a specific entity/ fictional character, depending on your belief.

I want you to answer something very simple which should clear this up instantly: do you spell it 'zeus' or 'Zeus'? And do you spell it 'aragorn' or 'Aragorn'?

...and, I am not a godfry, but godfry. As in god free. I'm case-sensitive about it, too, because I'm just as free of all other gods as I am of yours.
No, you appear fry of all other gods.

You also appear, while I'm at it, ignorant and stupid for so vocally advocating something so demonstrably incorrect.

wade-w

12-27-2004, 02:36 AM

I think your last comment was unecessarily harsh, justaman. It was also contrary to the spirit of your OP, as far as I can see.

justaman

12-27-2004, 02:49 AM

godfry n. glad

12-27-2004, 03:46 AM

I think your last comment was unecessarily harsh, justaman. It was also contrary to the spirit of your OP, as far as I can see.
You're right, but appeasment only makes the aggressors more aggressive :P

I'm wanting to see just a sliver of humility from godfry. I have a sick fascination with seeing the extremely arrogant who I am personally disdainful of transform into cool people I get along with.

On this issue, you shouldn't hold your breath, particularly now that you've engaged in ad hominim. You may continue to be personally distainful.

You appeal to seebs, but in this thread, he's appeared to change his mind about the nature of the term he uses for his god.

Just because historically the christians have been singularly incapable of correctly using articles, that's not my problem. They may continue to do so, but they may not demand that I do likewise. That is arrogance.

Your assertion is just that, an assertion. God is not a name for their god, but a descriptor...or, as seebs has indicated, a title. More of an occupational title, from my view. The god the christians worship is just another god.

As for arrogance, yours in now in full blossom. You have decided to arrogate to yourself the role of grammar nazi and make determinations on how I will use my language. Sorry, I don't acknowledge your authority or power in this. If e.e. cummiings can play with the rules of the English language, then so can I.

I you wish to continue as a humorless tool of the theist propaganda machine, then go for it. But don't try to bend others to your weakness.

godfry

justaman

12-27-2004, 04:17 AM

On this issue, you shouldn't hold your breath, particularly now that you've engaged in ad hominim. You may continue to be personally distainful.
K. :) Wasn't meant as an ad hominem though, only an honest observation. Arguing what you are does make you look stupid. It's up to you whether you resent the person informing you of this or whether you just change your behaviour.

You appeal to seebs, but in this thread, he's appeared to change his mind about the nature of the term he uses for his god.
What the crap are you talking about?? He's been saying the same thing the whole time!

When you write 'god' or 'God' you are talking about two entirely different meanings of the word. It isn't like 'him' or 'Him' which is what I think you are arguing. When you are referring to God as a name - as in the Christian God who is named 'God' - you capitalise it because it's a name. I really don't know how to make it any simpler, yet you continue to act as if there is no distinction.

Just because historically the christians have been singularly incapable of correctly using articles, that's not my problem. They may continue to do so, but they may not demand that I do likewise. That is arrogance.
Again, it's his name. You capitalise names. I am astounded by how wantonly obtuse you are being.

Your assertion is just that, an assertion.
No, it's a documented fact. Can you name any reputable dictionary whatever which doesn't have the following:

Main Entry: god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

You will note, I'm sure, that there are two (actually four, but we're talking about the more common two) different meanings of this word, and that one of those meanings grammatically requires capitalization.

God is not a name for their god, but a descriptor...or, as seebs has indicated, a title. More of an occupational title, from my view. The god the christians worship is just another god.
No, it's a recognised name as demonstrated in any dictionary you care to open. I don't much care how it started or when it evolved, its etymology is irrelevant. It is a name, that is the fact of the matter now.

As for arrogance, yours in now in full blossom. You have decided to arrogate to yourself the role of grammar nazi and make determinations on how I will use my language. Sorry, I don't acknowledge your authority or power in this.
Yes, I made up all the dictionaries. You're trying to say you are not making grammatical error by what you're doing. You are, and I have demonstrated this. :)

I you wish to continue as a humorless tool of the theist propaganda machine, then go for it. But don't try to bend others to your weakness.
And the Oscar goes to...

Honestly, I make an observation that this is all symptomatic of atheists becoming far too over-confident without any grounding and you - presumably to refute me - state that writing 'God' is being a humorless tool of the theist propaganda machine! This is not a well thought-out argument by any measure I can think of.

Also is there any reason why you pointedly ignored the question in my post to you?

godfry n. glad

12-27-2004, 04:47 AM

Listen, justaMan...

You can believe in whatever god you wish. Whether it's the god of the Christians, or the 1997 Strunk & White Handbook of Style, I care not. But don't even think of telling me how I will communicate. If I choose to defy this convention, then I shall.

If you take offense at that, then tough shit.

You are a prisoner of the dogma of the stylebook. As for the meaning of the word...I make no distinction between how the christians use the term "God" and the term "god". Is Brahma a god, or god? Is this is, is, or not? I conciously use the term "god" because it serves me and communicates how I feel. My whole point is that the "God" of the christians is no different than the god of any other belief system. I recognize no such entity as the one you define, or any dictionary defines, so I don't use that term, even for the god of the christians. That is my perogative. If you don't like it, then that's just fine...don't like. But you have no demand over how I shall or will use the language....so you can just fukken shove it up your ass sidewides along with that soapbox you're standing on.

godfry

:irked:

:angrynana: :angrynana: :angrynana:

Socratoad

12-27-2004, 04:58 AM

Hey godfry, don't be so shy, speak up. Don't be so reticent. Tell the guy how you really feel :innocent:

justaman

12-27-2004, 05:14 AM

You can believe in whatever god you wish.
I've said it before a couple of times, but who knows, maybe you really are this stupid: I'm an atheist ;)

Whether it's the god of the Christians, or the 1997 Strunk & White Handbook of Style, I care not. But don't even think of telling me how I will communicate. If I choose to defy this convention, then I shall. I think it's clear why not.

Ah, I see, a rebel with a cause, awesome :)

You choose to defy convention? Grand. Why? What are you acheiving, precisely?

I can answer that: nothing. You think you are bringing down the religious right by thumbing your nose at them, but in reality you simply appear childish. You don't appear logical or particularly intelligent, you just look like someone who thinks they are making a point, all the time failing to realise how pathetic it looks.

If you take offense at that, then tough shit.
This is something you seem incapable of grasping: I don't take offense at it. Most Christians don't take offense at it. The point of god vs God is really subordinate to my concern that over-confident atheists are just as intolerable in their ridiculous assertions as over-confident Christians.

You are demonstrating my point marvellously :)

I conciously use the term "god" because it serves me and communicates how I feel.
Exactly you feel contemptuous. That contempt is ill-directed. You are stupid for feeling contempt, and you are therefore stupid for wishing to communicate this to others :yup:

My whole point is that the "God" of the christians is no different than the god of any other belief system.
Yes he is. His name is recognised as 'God'. That's different to all the other gods (bar Allah, perhaps).

If you don't like it, then that's just fine...don't like. But you have no demand over how I shall or will use the language....so you can just fukken shove it up your ass sidewides along with that soapbox you're standing on.
Oooooooh Godfry! Does someone need a hug? :wink:

Throw as many tantrums as you wish, it doesn't make your reasoning any more sound, nor your appearance any less stupid. Kinda the opposite actually :D

:angrynana:
heh, one would almost think you've been offended :) You're as predictable as any fundie I've ever come across :P

livius drusus

12-27-2004, 05:19 AM

godfry n. glad

12-27-2004, 05:23 AM

Hey, toad...

Have you heard that the god of the christians is peerage?

godfry

godfry n. glad

12-27-2004, 05:40 AM

I don't think it's so much an issue of forcing you to follow convention, godfry, as seeking asknowledgement that it is indeed a grammatical convention. Naturally you can reject any and all such rules as you please - God (he he) knows internet fora are replete with a wide range of writing habits which would make both Strunk and White go fetal - but before you seemed to be saying your usage was grammatically acceptable, not a rejection of the standard.

Which god knows?

Yes, I have been inconsistant. But my normal usage is to refer to the christian god as "their god", "your god", "this god", specifically to ignore the convention of using "God". I choose to change their "God" to one of the qualified phrases. It seems to piss off the likes of justaMan. seebs has not been heard from since changing his mind...or was it augmenting his definition?

I believe the term "God" itself was a translation from the Greek, and before that, Hebrew, where I suspect the term had no capitalization. The Hebrew uses place names for the name of their god...which is unspeakable...and is represented by the tetragrammatron YHWH. One of the place names was "adonai". I think that the "God" usage is that placename, translated into English and then capitalized to glorify it as the one and only transcendant creator god...the ineffable...

So why the eff are we squabbling over this?

Their god is a god, just like their christ is one of many claimants.

Neither is a name, both are descriptive terms. Christians have arrogated common, generic terms as their sacred terminology by capitalizing it. That's fine, they may do so, but I don't have to acknowledge that, despite what any dictionary published in this overwhelmingly theistic culture says.

godfry

(...and who the hell is Jehovah, anyway?)

Socratoad

12-27-2004, 05:49 AM

Hey, toad...

Have you heard that the god of the christians is peerage?

godfry

I like that one :D

seebs

12-27-2004, 07:14 AM

Sorry for not responding more, it's my 10th anniversary (well, technically that's now yesterday, but you get the idea).

Anyway, I don't object to "your god" or "their god" or whatever. I do object to just downcasing without adding an article, because that's ungrammatical.

Goliath

12-27-2004, 08:05 AM

Well, as most people on this thread have guessed, I am the person that justaman was too cowardly to name in the OP.

As for you, justaman, I have had more than enough of your threats (both personal threats on seebs' blog, as well as the threat that you've given here to anyone who disagrees with you). For once in your miserable little life, listen:

I will continue to write "xian" instead of "Christian". I will not capitalize the word "god".

Don't like it?! I don't give a fuck what you like. Deal with it.

Adora

12-27-2004, 08:12 AM

You said something doesn't happen on the forum and it happened the next post. You aren't going to be able to get around that
I never said something doesn't happen. You said "If you hang around a place where people agree with each other constantly about X thing" and I suggested that it perhaps doesn't happen around here. That doesn't mean that people don't agree with others about things pertaining to atheistic ideologies, or that people are constantly disagreeing. It simply means that I disagree with your assertion that it happens constantly.

Of course it happens. It may happen a lot, or a little, but not constantly.

It isn't what people set out to do, but it is a symptomatic consequence of only talking with people who agree with you. That can only reinforce your beliefs.
Which again, I'm saying doesn't happen around here. Perhaps if you spent more time actually interacting with the forum, participating in discussions (fights, debates, childish insult flingings, whatever), you may realise this.

And I think intellectual righteousness is a wonderful way of describing the kind of arrogance I'm talking about. Have a look at some of Godfry's drivel here if you want to see a fine example
Yeah, because calling someone elses' post "drivel" isn't arrogant at all.

What do you believe in, incorrect grammar?
Yes actually, I do. Because those who seem to be most pantsy about grammar these days on this marvellous internet are Yanks, which is ironic when you consider how that damn continent has butchered the English language.

Capitalised God is a name, there is no way around this fact.
And I agree, which is why I avoid using the term, as I pointed out.

Tell me, how does it 'protagonise' others? Could you explain the process of 'protagonisation'?
Awh, da widdle newbie is trying to be smart. How cute.

Let me put it this way: If I can antagonise someone, why can't I protagonise them as well? Why can't I stimulate them in a positive way, if I can also do it in a negative way? I'm sorry if this offends the grammatically correct pole up your arse... no, wait, I'm not.

and I question why you are arguing so vehemently.
Because I think you're an asshat, and possibly a troll. But that's okay, because usually this board is pretty boring, and playing with fresh meat brings a bit of entertainment to its threads, troll or otherwise.

Stephen Hawking, for instance, writes 'Him', mostly - I think - to try and do everything he can to prevent alienating his science from the religious.
Why do I give a fuck what Stephen Hawking does? I am not him, which I am eternally happy about.

Again, my problem is that it makes my fellow atheists look silly. I'm not - personally - precisely offended by the usage
Then "I question why you are arguing so vehemently".

In fact I'm not answering any more of your post since I don't think we actually disagree.
Oh no, we still disagree. After this little ditty, I've decided I'm not going to capitalise god anymore either, because I rather agree with that "drivel" Godfry is posting and if it makes you look stupider than you are, then that's a little bit more sunshine in my day. Kay?

Oh, and I really need one of those 'Stop making my side look stupid' signs now, because you used the words "weak-atheist" and "strong-atheist". Next you'll be pulling "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" out of the hat.

Goliath

12-27-2004, 08:20 AM

Oh, and I really need one of those 'Stop making my side look stupid' signs now, because you used the words "weak-atheist" and "strong-atheist". Next you'll be pulling "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" out of the hat.

:eyebrow2:

Now wait a minute...justaman may be an asshat, but there is a difference between weak atheism and strong atheism, as I am a weak atheist, but not a strong atheist.

Adora

12-27-2004, 08:33 AM

Please, explain to me the difference between someone "weakly" being without a belief in a deity and someone "strongly" being without a belief in a deity. Because, in my view, they both lack the belief. You can tack extra definitions on as to why they don't believe (eg- agnostic atheist, scientific atheist, cynical atheist, etc) but I still take issue with this "strong" and "weak" BS.

Goliath

12-27-2004, 08:35 AM

Please, explain to me the difference between someone "weakly" being without a belief in a deity and someone "strongly" being without a belief in a deity.

I would, if either of those had anything to do with weak or strong atheism.

A strong atheist is one who believes that no gods exist.

A weak atheist is one who does not believe that any gods exist.

A strong atheist is a weak atheist, but the reverse implication does not hold.

justaman

12-27-2004, 09:21 AM

Well, as most people on this thread have guessed, I am the person that justaman was too cowardly to name in the OP.
Ah good, you came! I was hoping you would :)

It was hardly 'cowardly', I knew that if you were around you would pipe up, but I wasn't sure if you were necessarily around. I didn't name you because I don't like rubbishing people without allowing them the opportunity to respond. Also seebs had been telling me that you had apparently given a heart-felt apology about something or other, plus I had seen an apology from you in the xian vs Christian thread and wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.

It would appear I needed to do no such thing :P

As for you, justaman, I have had more than enough of your threats (both personal threats on seebs' blog, as well as the threat that you've given here to anyone who disagrees with you).
Threats?! The crap are you talking about? I made it quite obvious that I was going to be raising this issue with you in this forum in the blog, but I'm not sure you were meant to find that threatening. It's interesting that you did, however. And are you telling me you took the 'threat' I made in this thread about me killing people who disagree with me in any way seriously? Sharp one, ey? :wink:

For once in your miserable little life, listen:
Ironic that you would accuse me of not listening to another's arguments :yup:

I will continue to write "xian" instead of "Christian". I will not capitalize the word "god".

Don't like it?! I don't give a fuck what you like. Deal with it.
Awesome! Can we have a party?

Look I honestly can't tell if you guys are exactly what I'm talking about in the OP, intelligent atheists gone bad, or whether you are simply just really stupid, but there is a point you and godfry and the rest of my detractors appear to not be able to read: I don't care whether you use 'xian' or not! That is not the reason I started this thread. I am not personally offended, I really don't care which you use. The point is, i fyou use it, you look stupid. That's it. I really don't care whether you want to look stupid or not. If you do, excellent. Probably, it's appropriate. But this in no way takes away from the fact that you very much do appear stupid for doing it.

It's like a guy standing on a street-corner wearing a fish as a hat. I'm telling him "Man, you know you look a bit stupid like that" and then he starts hysterically screaming at me that it's his right to do what he wants, there's no law against wearing fish-hats, he doesn't care whether I like it or not, etc. He's right, he can wear whatever he wants and I really don't care, but the fact of the matter is he looks stupid.

I raise this only to highlight a point I do care about, which is atheists giving the rest of us bad names because of their obstinant belligerence. There was no call to say some of the things you did in seebs' blog, and your unashamed indifference about the logic in his arguments I am instinctively suspicious of. As I've observed a couple of times, atheists who don't listen are as friggen annoying as the most fundamentalist of Christians.

Goliath

12-27-2004, 09:30 AM

Ah good, you came! I was hoping you would :)

Why?

I knew that if you were around you would pipe up, but I wasn't sure if you were necessarily around. I didn't name you because I don't like rubbishing people without allowing them the opportunity to respond.

A cursory evaluation of my profile would've told you that I have posted recently and that I am not banned. Ergo, it follows that I "am around".

Also seebs had been telling me that you had apparently given a heart-felt apology about something or other

:eyebrow2: :?

plus I had seen an apology from you in the xian vs Christian thread and wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.

In case you hadn't noticed, that apology wasn't for you.

Threats?! The crap are you talking about?

Do you really need me to answer that question? Isn't it obvious? Or are you just pretending to be an idiot?

Awesome! Can we have a party?

a). I'm not really the party-going type.

b). Even if I did want to throw a party, why would I invite you?

I don't care whether you use 'xian' or not!

Then there's no need for this thread to exist. The instant that I give a fuck about whether you think I'm stupid, I'll let you know.

justaman

12-27-2004, 09:51 AM

Of course it happens. It may happen a lot, or a little, but not constantly.
Ok, fair enough, but it was funny. :P

Which again, I'm saying doesn't happen around here. Perhaps if you spent more time actually interacting with the forum, participating in discussions (fights, debates, childish insult flingings, whatever), you may realise this.
You're not hearing me. As I said to the administrator guys I am not making a commentary on this forum, only on some of its participants. I made the opening observation as a possible reason for why some atheists go that way, maybe it's correct maybe it isn't (I tend to think it is, but look it's really neither here nor there). The fact is that these people do exist and a bunch of them are posting on this thread :P They are who I'm talking about, not the forum.

Yeah, because calling someone elses' post "drivel" isn't arrogant at all.
Perhaps it is, but I think there is a difference between someone being pointedly disdainful about someone who has written something honestly and very openly about their personal beliefs and someone being pointedly disdainful about the attitude of the first pointedly disdainful guy.

I have a friend in 3 RAR who was having to negotiate with some armoured guys about firing range useage and his SGT told him, "Look, just march into that pip-squeak OC's office, cock your beret, plant one foot on the desk and tell him, 'We're doing it my way, because I'm fuckin' Airborne.'"

I love that story, and I keep thinking of it when talking about atheists who believe all Christians must be necessairly less intelligent than they are.

Yes actually, I do. Because those who seem to be most pantsy about grammar these days on this marvellous internet are Yanks, which is ironic when you consider how that damn continent has butchered the English language.
:P Fair enough.

And I agree, which is why I avoid using the term, as I pointed out.
Well in that case we agree, despite you later saying you still disagree with me.

Awh, da widdle newbie is trying to be smart. How cute.
Oh, you're someone who thinks intelligence and logic is proportional to post-counts are you? How revolutionary. :)

Let me put it this way: If I can antagonise someone, why can't I protagonise them as well? Why can't I stimulate them in a positive way, if I can also do it in a negative way? I'm sorry if this offends the grammatically correct pole up your arse... no, wait, I'm not.
You used a made up word, dude. :)

And hey, maybe there are situations where using it can stimulate people positively - like if you were conversing with a particularly anti-Christian individual - but I don't think it is really accurate to compare this to how it generally occurs and appears.

Because I think you're an asshat, and possibly a troll. But that's okay, because usually this board is pretty boring, and playing with fresh meat brings a bit of entertainment to its threads, troll or otherwise.
I certainly have stung a lot of people, it appears. I find that amusing. Usually it's Christians who are offended by hardline atheists, and here they are all apparently offended by me. :D I love it.

And you are doing very well with this fresh piece of meat :P I feel like I've been through a veritible grinder trying to match the logic of your arguments.

Why do I give a fuck what Stephen Hawking does? I am not him, which I am eternally happy about.
Just illustrating. Not every analogy is meant to imply you might like to be that person. In fact I think that's rarely the case. In fact this response was fairly ridiculous, just quietly.

Then "I question why you are arguing so vehemently".
I like arguing. And I'm not the one calling people 'asshats'. :wink:

Again, the point of this thread isn't grammar. It's stupid atheists.

Oh no, we still disagree.
How?

After this little ditty, I've decided I'm not going to capitalise god anymore either, because I rather agree with that "drivel" Godfry is posting and if it makes you look stupider than you are, then that's a little bit more sunshine in my day. Kay?
Hey, go for it! Reduce your credibility to spite me, it'll work, honest :P

Oh, and I really need one of those 'Stop making my side look stupid' signs now, because you used the words "weak-atheist" and "strong-atheist".
If you are not aware of the distinction between these two terms I question how you have any confidence in your beliefs whatever. You really don't appear very learned on the subject.

Goliath has already dealt with this, but here's some further info from the Wikid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism

Goliath

12-27-2004, 09:58 AM

I love that story, and I keep thinking of it when talking about atheists who believe all Christians must be necessairly less intelligent than they are.

I've spent many, many years having face-to-face conversations about religion with many atheists and many xians. I've also spent 2-3 years posting at the IIDB, and longer than that reading the posts there. I've lurked at Ebla, Cross+Flame, and other boards with a theme of religious discussions, and I have never recalled encountering a single atheist who claims to be more intelligent than all xians. Ever. I don't suppose you'll do me the favor of pointing out a single fucking member of this board who has EVER made that claim (or, for that fucking matter a single god damn atheist on this planet who has ever made that claim) could you?

Oh, what's that? You can't? And what's that sound? Why it must be the pile of bullshit that passes for your arguments crumbling all around you and burying you under ten tons of shit.

livius drusus

12-27-2004, 10:14 AM

Perhaps, Goliath, you missed the quote from me earlier in this thread As I said in the xian v. Christian thread, I used "xian" and "Jebus" or "gog" because I thought I was quite the wit, and there was definitely an I'm smarter than you snobbery involved.
But even if I hadn't actually described thinking myself smarter than Christians, I could provide you with plenty of instances of atheists claiming Christians are intrinsically less rational, less thoughtful, less intelligent than nontheists. A glance at the first 2 pages of GRD should be all it takes. As it's 4 am and I shouldn't even be up, you'll have to forgive if I don't do that right now.

I expect your apology for your assholish tone will be forthcoming shortly. Then again, why break your perfect record and start treating him and others with whom you disagree with a tiny modicum of respect and decency?

Goliath

12-27-2004, 10:22 AM

Perhaps, Goliath, you missed the quote from me earlier in this thread As I said in the xian v. Christian thread, I used "xian" and "Jebus" or "gog" because I thought I was quite the wit, and there was definitely an I'm smarter than you snobbery involved.

But did you think you were smarter than all xians?

But even if I hadn't actually described thinking myself smarter than Christians, I could provide you with plenty of instances of atheists claiming Christians are intrinsically less rational, less thoughtful, less intelligent than nontheists. A glance at the first 2 pages of GRD should be all it takes. As it's 4 am and I shouldn't even be up, you'll have to forgive if I don't do that right now.

That's strange, because (as I'm sure you can recall) I was very active in GRD when I was posting at the IIDB, and I can never recall a single atheist claiming to be smarter than all xians.

I expect your apology for your assholish tone will be forthcoming shortly.

Why should I apologize to justaman? Why does he deserve it? Why should I apologize to someone who has threatened me?

Then again, why break your perfect record and start treating him and others with whom you disagree with a tiny modicum of respect and decency?

Simple disagreements have nothing to do with it, and it deeply offends and saddens me that you'd think that.

justaman

12-27-2004, 10:25 AM

Why?
Because I wanted to see for myself if you could really be so self-righteous as to justify your behaviour in the blog.

A cursory evaluation of my profile would've told you that I have posted recently and that I am not banned. Ergo, it follows that I "am around".
I suppose I could have done that. I'm not sure I cared that much though. I don't plan on stalking you, dude.

:eyebrow2: :
Hey man I dunno. Just what he said.

In case you hadn't noticed, that apology wasn't for you.
I thought it might have been indicative of an open-minded personality. I was mistaken, was I?

Do you really need me to answer that question? Isn't it obvious? Or are you just pretending to be an idiot?
No it really isn't obvious. I made it very clear to you that I earnestly hoped for an opportunity to attack your abhorantly ignorant attitude. So if you find posts on internet forums 'threatening' I'd suggest you need to harden up a little. I'm not going to poison your dog, chief. There's really no need to feel threatened.

Then there's no need for this thread to exist. The instant that I give a fuck about whether you think I'm stupid, I'll let you know.
The reason for this thread was to highlight the fact that atheists do not do themselves any favours by simply assuming they are right about the world. Not everyone has responded with such hostilitiy as yourself, a couple have even agreed with me.

It is your choice to get angry about this observation. A bigger person might have accepted the logic of what I'm saying, and perhaps - dare I suggest it - maybe even felt a pang of regret for acting like a fucking tool in someone else's blog.

You are clearly not such a person, no worries.

justaman

12-27-2004, 10:30 AM

I have never recalled encountering a single atheist who claims to be more intelligent than all xians. Ever.[/b] I don't suppose you'll do me the favor of pointing out a single fucking member of this board who has EVER made that claim (or, for that fucking matter a single god damn atheist on this planet who has ever made that claim) could you?
Now you recognise that it's stupid to think an atheist is smarter than all Christians. Yet but saying 'xian' etc, that is intrinsically what you are doing. The reason why it is silly to think atheists are smarter than Christians is the same reason why it is silly to make a point of writing 'xian' etc. That's the point I'm ultimately trying to get at :)

Goliath

12-27-2004, 10:32 AM

Because I wanted to see for myself if you could really be so self-righteous as to justify your behaviour in the blog.

Self-righteous? How so?

I was mistaken, was I?

I don't believe so, no. Otherwise, I would've put you on ignore, along with seebs.

No it really isn't obvious.

Fine. You've threatened me on seebs' blog ("I'll be keeping an eye on you"...are you some kind of god damn stalker?) as well as in this thread (Exercise for the reader: Find said threat).

There's really no need to feel threatened.

Why should I trust you?

The reason for this thread was to highlight the fact that atheists do not do themselves any favours by simply assuming they are right about the world.

There's one thing that you need to add to the end of that sentence...just three little words...here they are: "in my opinion". And guess the hell what? Not everyone agrees with your opinion. Deal with it.

Goliath

12-27-2004, 10:34 AM

Now you recognise that it's stupid to think an atheist is smarter than all Christians.

Not only do I recognize that now, but I've always recognized it.

Yet but saying 'xian' etc, that is intrinsically what you are doing.

Wrong, because guess what? I don't believe that I am smarter than all xians.

justaman

12-27-2004, 10:38 AM

Wrong, because guess what? I don't believe that I am smarter than all xians.
Look I believe you, but this simply doesn't avoid the fact that that is the implication of writing 'xian'. You can say you don't believe you are smarter than all Christians all you like, by writing 'xian' you are acting as if you do.

Goliath

12-27-2004, 10:40 AM

but this simply doesn't avoid the fact that that is the implication of writing 'xian'.

Wrong again. Listen to me. I do use "xian" instead of "Christian". However, I do not believe that I am more intelligent than all xians. Therefore the implication that your claim holds does not, in fact, hold. I am a counterexample. Again, you're wrong.

You can say you don't believe you are smarter than all Christians all you like, by writing 'xian' you are acting as if you do.

Wrong again. See above.

livius drusus

12-27-2004, 10:42 AM

But did you think you were smarter than all xians?

I'm not interested in slender semantic quibbles. As far as I am concerned, any unqualified generalization such as "Christians suspend all rational thought in order to believe" implies all. I said in that quote that I considered myself smarter than Christians, therefore, justaman's comment was entirely backed up even by a post in this very thread.

That's strange, because (as I'm sure you can recall) I was very active in GRD when I was posting at the IIDB, and I can never recall a single atheist claiming to be smarter than all xians.

I recall very well. As for the "all" distinction, see above.

Why should I apologize to justaman? Why does he deserve it? Why should I apologize to someone who has threatened me?

I find the claim that he has threatened you ludicrous, frankly, and I think you should apologize for once again treating a person with an utter lack of respect right out of the box. Not that I expect you to, mind you, but if I were you - which I very obviously am not - that's what I'd do.

Simple disagreements have nothing to do with it, and it deeply offends and saddens me that you'd think that.

Your impressions of your discussions almost never match my own. It's a pity that offends and saddens you. Since that was not my intent, I apologize for having caused you such deep offense and sadness.

seebs

12-27-2004, 10:48 AM

I have seen atheists claim that all Christians are suffering from brain-rot, and similar things. Of course, I can't prove that they're wrong!

Goliath

12-27-2004, 10:49 AM

I'm not interested in slender semantic quibbles.

But it's not a quibble. The "all" in "all xians" is incredibly important and its removal entirely changes what I've said.

As far as I am concerned, any unqualified generalization such as "Christians suspend all rational thought in order to believe" implies all.

Well, that's a difference between us.

I said in that quote that I considered myself smarter than Christians, therefore, justaman's comment was entirely backed up even by a post in this very thread.

Okay, fine. You once thought yourself smarter than all xians. I concede that.

Is there anyone currently participating in this thread who believes that they are smarter than all xians?

I find the claim that he has threatened you ludicrous, frankly,

Well, I don't, and I fail to understand why you think his threats ludicrous. Threats are things that I take very seriously.

and I think you should apologize for once again treating a person with an utter lack of respect right out of the box.

Actually, he started the insults against me before coming to this board.

Your impressions of your discussions almost never match my own.

Yes that seems to be the case. I wish it were possible to explore why without the two of us hurling insults at one another.

Since that was not my intent, I apologize for having caused you such deep offense and sadness.

Thank you. Looking back, I had a bit of a kneejerk reaction to your response, and I apologize for that.

justaman

12-27-2004, 10:50 AM

Self-righteous? How so?
To rubbish someone (read extremely intelligent Christian) in their blog and then think it is somehow acceptable, or perhaps even virtuous, to do so.

I don't believe so, no. Otherwise, I would've put you on ignore, along with seebs.
Ok, that's fair enough. But I think you could probably spend a bit more time on my initial argument in the OP rather than just assuming this is all a personal attack on your character.

Fine. You've threatened me on seebs' blog ("I'll be keeping an eye on you"...are you some kind of god damn stalker?) as well as in this thread (Exercise for the reader: Find said threat).
I said, "I'll be watching for you" = "I hope to meet you again to discuss (attack you about) this".

I apologise if that was ambigious. Yes, I was a little short with you, perhaps underservingly so, but seebs is someone I have great admiration for and seeing your very one-dimensional attack on him ticked me off a bit.

Why should I trust you?
Oh quit being so dramatic! The heck could I do to you anyway?? All I can do - and all I was ever 'threatening' to do - is confront you and your attitude in this forum. I really don't think that is a threat you particularly need to worry yourself about.

There's one thing that you need to add to the end of that sentence...just three little words...here they are: "in my opinion". And guess the hell what? Not everyone agrees with your opinion. Deal with it.
Oh well why doesn't everyone starting a thread say that?? Of course it's just my opinion, one would like to think that goes without saying. People are welcome to disagree with me and some have. Some have been constructive (sorta) in their criticism, you have simply been hostile and not even attempted to address my logic whatever.

You don't have to agree with me, but it'd be awesome to hear a logical justification for why not, rather than assuming childish fits of swearing will suffice. :wink:

livius drusus

12-27-2004, 10:51 AM

I have seen atheists claim that all Christians are suffering from brain-rot, and similar things. Of course, I can't prove that they're wrong!

:chuckle:

Goliath

12-27-2004, 10:58 AM

To rubbish someone (read extremely intelligent Christian) in their blog and then think it is somehow acceptable, or perhaps even virtuous, to do so.

:? Where I come from, rubbish is a noun, not a verb.

Ok, that's fair enough. But I think you could probably spend a bit more time on my initial argument in the OP rather than just assuming this is all a personal attack on your character.

I've already done so: see my reply to you penultimate to this one.

I said, "I'll be watching for you" = "I hope to meet you again to discuss (attack you about) this".

I apologise if that was ambigious.

Ah, well in that case, I definitely owe you an apology. I'm sorry.

The heck could I do to you anyway??

'The heck couldn't you do (or anyone do, for that matter)?

Of course it's just my opinion,

Well, it's good to know that you realize that...you kept brandying it about as though it was an irrefutable fact, so I honestly wasn't sure.

you have simply been hostile and not even attempted to address my logic whatever.

Wrong again, see above.

Godless Dave

12-27-2004, 11:01 AM

God, used as a proper noun, should be capitalized:

"I swear to God!"

The word god used as an improper noun should not:

"Zeus was a god worshipped by the ancient Greeks."

"Most Christian denominations do not call their god by a name, but refer to him simply as 'God'".

Goliath

12-27-2004, 11:04 AM

But why treat xianity as though it's so special? Why do they get the privelege of "God" when all the non-Abhahamic religions only get a "god" or "gods"?

Why should I show xianity that kind of respect?

Socratoad

12-27-2004, 11:12 AM

My 2cents, this thread has become tooooooo depressing and of little use that I can see, of course I may be blind.

Goliath, are you aware that you are losing it ..... again.

justaman, if you have half the insight you profess to have, why can't you see that Goliath is losing it?

And in general I'm sure that I've made it abundantly clear that I have little respect for religion in general, and yet I have much respect for many many practitioners of the various religions. Having followed the various threads here and elsewhere I especially have much respect for seebs. He is a cool and level-headed a person as I have ever had the privilege of reading on various subjects, and so he certainly does not need people demanding or goading people on his behalf as he does much more than adequate in presenting his own viewpoints.

seebs, although we have never conversed as far as my feeble memory call recall, you sir have my respect.

Now would it be possible to get this thread and one or two others onto a higher plain? Liv has put her heart and soul into this board along with the help of vm, now can we at least try not to hinder their efforts.