Regarding Christians

[justaman]

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]

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 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.
Where do you get the impression that forum members don't discuss religion and philosophy on other sites? The Freethought Forum simply provides a place to find people with a certain approach to understanding life; it's up to the individual to diversify the range of opinions he is exposed to.

[seebs]

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]

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.

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.

I don't personally use xian because I think it's stupid looking and disrespectful, and I generally use a capital 'g' for God since it is a proper noun. But I don't think people who use it are necessarily being insulting. I think some people really just use it as an abbreviation. And I was gonna link to that thread seebs linked to but for some reason this post has taken me an hour to write.

[viscousmemories]

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]

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

[justaman]

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]

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]

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?
You think we do this on this forum?

Pffft. You may want to spend a bit more time here...

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

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".
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'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.

This appears to me immediately disingenous because many of those people who believe these things are not dumb.
True, and yet Sturgeon's Law is infinitely applicable.

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. 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.

[Socratoad]

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.

[Gawen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Socratoad]

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]

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]

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

[wade-w]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

But "god" requires an article.

My friend Steve believes in God.
My friend Steve believes in a god.
My friend Steve believes in god.

See?

[godfry n. glad]

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]

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.

[lisarea]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[justaman]

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]

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]

]
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]

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]

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]

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.

[godfry n. glad]

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]

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]

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]

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

[justaman]

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]

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.

[godfry n. glad]

Hey, toad...

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

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

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]

Hey, toad...

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

godfry


I like that one :D

[seebs]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Goliath]

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


No, I don't believe so. I've been fairly calm throughout the composing of my replies.

And if this is some sort of scheme to make me look crazy to justaman, it will more than likely fail.

[Socratoad]

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


No, I don't believe so. I've been fairly calm throughout the composing of my replies.

And if this is some sort of scheme to make me look crazy to justaman, it will more than likely fail.

Oh please, not more paranoia :(

Goliath, I was trying to be helpful. Perhaps its impossible. Either way I'm not going to be dragged further into the rancour of this thread.

[justaman]

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.
An analogy. You are walking around town, giving everyone the finger saying "You know, I don't mean any offense by this, team! Just go about your business as if I'm not giving you the finger".

As I said, what you are saying and what you are doing are different, whether you mean them to be or not. What is inferred may be different to what is implied, and I think that is precisely the point in this case.

[Goliath]

An analogy. You are walking around town, giving everyone the finger saying "You know, I don't mean any offense by this, team! Just go about your business as if I'm not giving you the finger".

a). Your analogy fails because everyone takes "the finger" to be something intended as an insult, whereas not everyone is a xian.

and

b). An analogy does not a logical argument make.



As I said, what you are saying and what you are doing are different, whether you mean them to be or not.



And again, you're wrong, because the implication that you claim holds does not hold.

Again, I use "xian" instead of "Christian", and I do not consider myself to be smarter than all xians.

Again, your argument is defeated.

Get over it.

[justaman]

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?
I don't know that he's "losing it".

His intro post was basically telling everyone to fuck off. Now, after some interchanges, he is conversing at a meaningful level. I'd suggest this is constructive, wouldn't you agree? I don't see how being constructive can equate to him '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.
Of course. But then rude and disingenuous atheists aren't something he is terribly concerned about. That's more a pet peeve of mine, and why I made this thread :)

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.
Absolutely, but again, I'm not sure that some of the flaming hasn't in fact made the subject a little clearer. But certainly, I see no further use for it at this point and I'll try to be good :innocent:

[Goliath]

His intro post was basically telling everyone to fuck off.

My intro post?! Tell ya what, kid: go into my profile, and dig back to my very first post in this forum, and read it.

On the other hand, if you replace "His" with "My" and "telling" with "treating" and "to fuck off" with "like children for not wanting to fellate Christ", then you'd have a much more accurate statement.

[Goliath]

Oh please, not more paranoia :(

:deepsigh: You know, sometimes I feel as though I'm the last literate person on the planet.

Again:



And if this is some sort of scheme to make me look crazy to justaman, it will more than likely fail.



Note the if sitting in that above quote. Note that the above quoted sentence says nothing about what happens if your post was not an attempt to make me look crazy to justaman.

If I were paranoid, I'd probably say something like:



AH HA! I know what you're up to! You're trying to make me look crazy to justaman! It won't work! I'm not crazy!!!



:wink:

[Godless Dave]

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"?

If you're referring to my post, they don't. The way I set out applies the same rules of English spelling to everybody. God, the name, is capitalized just like Zeus, the name, is capitalized. God, the noun, is not.

If we were writing in German it wouldn't even be an issue: it would always be Gott with a capital G because in German all nouns are capitalized.

[Socratoad]

But Goliath, you ARE the last literate person on earth. Now doe'nt that feel good. Would a nice cuppa warm milk and some cookies help?

[Godless Dave]

Note the if sitting in that above quote. Note that the above quoted sentence says nothing about what happens if your post was not an attempt to make me look crazy to justaman.

Even with the "if" it's paranoid. There is nothing in this thread to warrant a suspicion that someone might be trying to make you look crazy.

[Godless Dave]

I know this has been discussed to death, but here are my two cents anyway. Anyone offended by the abbreviation "xtian" is maybe being too sensitive. It's just an abbreviation, like brit or aussie.

[seebs]

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?

It's not a question of respect, but one of grammar. It doesn't matter that there are probably millions of people in the world named "Bob"; I still capitalize any noun which is used as a proper name.

When referring to a specific thing, you capitalize it. The Capitol is near downtown, a friend of mine went to look at the Basillica, I live in Minnesota, my friend believes in God. Grammar, not respect.

[Godless Dave]

... and bob, the hairstyle, is never capitalized. It's really pretty simple.

[Goliath]

Even with the "if" it's paranoid. There is nothing in this thread to warrant a suspicion that someone might be trying to make you look crazy.

If you aren't going to bother to read what I've actually written, then there's no reason for you to reply.

[Godless Dave]

Even with the "if" it's paranoid. There is nothing in this thread to warrant a suspicion that someone might be trying to make you look crazy.

If you aren't going to bother to read what I've actually written, then there's no reason for you to reply.

I did read what you had written, in the original post, and it sounded paranoid.

[justaman]

Your analogy fails because everyone takes "the finger" to be something intended as an insult, whereas not everyone is a xian.
Everyone does not take the finger as an insult, an Eskimo wouldn't have the first clue what you're talking about.

The point is that everyone who recognises the meaning of the gesture recognises a derogatory intent. Just so, anyone who recognises the meaning of 'xian' recognises a derogatory intent. Even if you don't intend that particular intention, it is submitted in the action anyway. :yup:

And again, you're wrong, because the implication that you claim holds does not hold.

Again, I use "xian" instead of "Christian", and I do not consider myself to be smarter than all xians.

I'll explain it to you again: It-is-irrelevant-that-you-do-not-consider-yourself-smarter-than-all-Christians.

It is an intrinsic part of the word (if it can be called such) not your intent. Everytime you use the word, that is the impression you give to othersregardless of your intentions.

Again, your argument is defeated.
You've defeated a convenient strawman, but you're still yet to actually address my argument.

My intro post?! Tell ya what, kid: go into my profile, and dig back to my very first post in this forum, and read it.
I meant intro post in this thread. But I have to take back what I said to Socratoad about your dialogue becoming meaningful:
On the other hand, if you replace "His" with "My" and "telling" with "treating" and "to fuck off" with "like children for not wanting to fellate Christ", then you'd have a much more accurate statement.
:D I'm curious how you could possibly think the above helps your cause! Do you enjoy appearing this trivial? :P

[godfry n. glad]

I know this has been discussed to death, but here are my two cents anyway. Anyone offended by the abbreviation "xtian" is maybe being too sensitive. It's just an abbreviation, like brit or aussie.

Only Brit and Aussie are capitalized. :wink: At least try to be consistant, Dave.

[godfry n. glad]

An analogy. You are walking around town, giving everyone the finger saying "You know, I don't mean any offense by this, team! Just go about your business as if I'm not giving you the finger".

That's a great analogy for those who claim that their god has privileges above and beyond all others and that all non-believers must acknowledge that by capitalizing a generic placeholder for the unspeakable name of their deity.

They should stop that because it unnecessarily antagonizes others.

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

When referring to a specific thing, you capitalize it. The Capitol is near downtown, a friend of mine went to look at the Basillica, I live in Minnesota, my friend believes in God. Grammar, not respect.


Ya missed an article there, seebs. And unnecessarily capitalized the result. It's "my friend believes in a god".

godfry

[Goliath]

I did read what you had written, in the original post, and it sounded paranoid.

Well, it wasn't. Read it again, and read my response to Scroatoad.

[Goliath]

Everyone does not take the finger as an insult, an Eskimo wouldn't have the first clue what you're talking about.

But there are no Eskimos living down the street from me, whence your analogy still fails (not to mention your argument).

I'll explain it to you again: It-is-irrelevant-that-you-do-not-consider-yourself-smarter-than-all-Christians.

Wrong as usual. I use "xian" instead of "Christian", and I do not believe myself to be smarter than all xians. Therefore the implication that you're trying to draw between using "xian" and claiming to be smarter than all xians is demonstrably false. I am a living counterexample.

You've defeated a convenient strawman, but you're still yet to actually address my argument.

Wrong yet again. I have thoroughly crushed your argument.


:D I'm curious how you could possibly think the above helps your cause!


Since you're such a know-it-all smart-ass, you tell me: what is "my cause"?

[Socratoad]

Ok you two children, seeing that both of you are so fond of nitpicking I know several Eskimos, but the proper term is now Inuit, plus a couple of variations therof. In fact I know several who just might kick you in the nuts if you call them Eskimos. These people including those in Greenland are quite likely to understand what giving the finger signifies and so there is another point you both can argue about and insult one another, or me if it serves to amuse. :D

[viscousmemories]

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.
Hey, liv and I designed and built every inch and aspect of this site (except where smilies are concerned) cooperatively, I'm not quite the Boy Friday this makes me sound like. :P

As I said in my first post 'God' (as in the god of Abraham) is a proper noun that is capitalized by anyone interested in using correct grammar. However I don't personally think it makes someone look any more stupid than any other grammatical mistake. And when someone makes a point of using incorrect grammar to editorialize I just roll my eyes. I swear I gave livius shit at some point in time for using 'jebus' and 'gog' because it just looks stupid. But I didn't think she was stupid, since even a cursory reading of her post makes it obvious she's not.

As for whether these bastardizations of the language make "my side" look bad, I'm not concerned. I don't consider myself on the 'side' of atheists because I happen to not believe in a god any more than I'm on the 'side' of white people because I happen to be white. :P

[viscousmemories]

Oh and reading Socratoad's cross-post with mine reminds me that I forgot my favorite semantic nitpick which frankly makes you look stupid, justaman:

There are many computer networks, but there is only one Internet. :P

[Socratoad]

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.
Hey, liv and I designed and built every inch and aspect of this site (except where smilies are concerned) cooperatively, I'm not quite the Boy Friday this makes me sound like. :P



Hi vm, whereya bin hidin? :wave: (no thats not the name of a terrorist) I knew when I wrote that sentence it did not look right.. I'm well aware of your technical expertise. My excuses (yes I have several) I'm rather chivalrous and so I usually give the fair maidens most of the credit. Doncha know, in any relationship we guys are always the boy Friday.... they DO allow us our cherished delusions. It was very late and I was too tired to edit and rewrite :yup:

[viscousmemories]

Hi vm, whereya bin hidin? :wave: (no thats not the name of a terrorist)
This season depresses me so I haven't felt like posting much.

I knew when I wrote that sentence it did not look right.. I'm well aware of your technical expertise.
But my input here has never been strictly technical. We researched forums together, we wrote the rules and policies together, etc. There really is as much of my heart and soul in this forum as livius'. It's just that for reasons I'm not entirely clear on there is a popular misconception that this forum is entirely livius' brainchild and responsibility and I was brought on to install the software. I'm not meaning to single you out or make a big deal about your flippant comment, either. I'm just using this opportunity to correct a pervasive erroneous impression that has been bugging me for some time.

My excuses (yes I have several) I'm rather chivalrous and so I usually give the fair maidens most of the credit. Doncha know, in any relationship we guys are always the boy Friday.... they DO allow us our cherished delusions. It was very late and I was too tired to edit and rewrite :yup:
With chivalry I can't argue at all. I tend to think livius doesn't get a smattering of the praise and attention she deserves for everything she puts into this forum (although she does get quite a bit from some).

Anyway I'm only babbling because I'm not sure what I have done (or not done) that has created the impression that I don't have as much investment or interest in the FF as livius does. Please take it with a big grain of sea salt.

[lisarea]

Anyway I'm only babbling because I'm not sure what I have done (or not done) that has created the impression that I don't have as much investment or interest in the FF as livius does. Please take it with a big grain of sea salt.

It's not you. You guys both suck equally. It's just that she's all bossy and loud about it all the time.

Oh. Wait. I meant "rock." You guys both "rock" equally.

[viscousmemories]

Anyway I'm only babbling because I'm not sure what I have done (or not done) that has created the impression that I don't have as much investment or interest in the FF as livius does. Please take it with a big grain of sea salt.

It's not you. You guys both suck equally. It's just that she's all bossy and loud about it all the time.

Oh. Wait. I meant "rock." You guys both "rock" equally.
:sadnana:

God (with a capital 'g' to stay on topic) I love that smiley.

[seebs]

When referring to a specific thing, you capitalize it. The Capitol is near downtown, a friend of mine went to look at the Basillica, I live in Minnesota, my friend believes in God. Grammar, not respect.


Ya missed an article there, seebs. And unnecessarily capitalized the result. It's "my friend believes in a god".

That would be a different claim.

There's a real semantic difference. It's not "unnecessarily capitalized and missed an atricle"; it's a different claim.

My friend wants to go to the pound and hook up with a kitty; my other friend wants to go to the bar and hook up with Kitty.

[lisarea]

Capitalization rules are just conventions. The conventions for capitalizing titles and names are traditionally applied when you're discussing a specific god. It the rules for capitalizing titles doesn't ring true, think of 'God' as a nickname. You capitalize nicknames.

So, according to most style guides, when you're referring to a specific entity known as 'God,' you capitalize that name, just like you guys are always capitalizing my nickname, 'Kingfish,' even if you dispute my standing as the king of fish.

However, as with all conventions, there is no boss. Some people punctuate and capitalize according to different conventions, and nobody has the authority to dispute others' personal conventions. I intentionally use the singular 'they,' for example, despite the fact that pretty much no official usage guide condones that. I have my reasons, and I do it consciously. To take a more ideological perspective, I have a very hard time referring to Bush as 'president,' capitalization aside, so I avoid doing so, despite the fact that it's technically correct. Some people intentionally mipsell Amerika or U$A in order to convey their perspectives. Are those the most articulate arguments? Of course not. But they communicate what they're meant to communicate. The choice not to capitalize 'god,' even when conventions call for it, is often a conscious decision, and it communicates exactly what it's meant to communicate.

[wei yau]

Anyway I'm only babbling because I'm not sure what I have done (or not done) that has created the impression that I don't have as much investment or interest in the FF as livius does. Please take it with a big grain of sea salt.

Well, I've always acknowledged that the two of you have created a wonderful forum. I may be more effusive in my praise towards livius, because I have so much trouble with your name, "vicious".

Perhaps I'll start referring to the two of you a single entity when praising the forum.

You've done great work here. I love this place and feel very comfortable here. Thank you, livm (lih-vee-ehm).

[livius drusus]

:chuckle:

[wei yau]

Back to the OP....

Sometimes I feel like I'm a bad atheist. I don't have share the vehemence that some do for religion, in general or Christianity, specfically.

My life is largely untouched by religion. Growing up in NYC made sure I was exposed to a multicultural society. Working for a company that is very closely related to India, ensure that the majority of my day is not affected at all by religion.

Live and let live.

Sure, I get riled up when I see Christian Right blowhards on television and in politics. And yes, I will fight when I see the weakening of the wall between Church and State.

But, for the most part, I just don't think that much about religion or Christianity. Although, I will say that I do respect and admire the powerful social and historical force that is Christianity.

[Socratoad]

Capitalization rules are just conventions. The conventions for capitalizing titles and names are traditionally applied when you're discussing a specific god. It the rules for capitalizing titles doesn't ring true, think of 'God' as a nickname. You capitalize nicknames.

So, according to most style guides, when you're referring to a specific entity known as 'God,' you capitalize that name, just like you guys are always capitalizing my nickname, 'Kingfish,' even if you dispute my standing as the king of fish.

However, as with all conventions, there is no boss. Some people punctuate and capitalize according to different conventions, and nobody has the authority to dispute others' personal conventions. I intentionally use the singular 'they,' for example, despite the fact that pretty much no official usage guide condones that. I have my reasons, and I do it consciously. To take a more ideological perspective, I have a very hard time referring to Bush as 'president,' capitalization aside, so I avoid doing so, despite the fact that it's technically correct. Some people intentionally mipsell Amerika or U$A in order to convey their perspectives. Are those the most articulate arguments? Of course not. But they communicate what they're meant to communicate. The choice not to capitalize 'god,' even when conventions call for it, is often a conscious decision, and it communicates exactly what it's meant to communicate.
:bow2: :yes!: :glomp2: :thumbsup: :clap: :clap: :appl: :bowing: :ovation:
And for those of you that do not agree with that which is posted above I say in all humility, "Fuck you all, but save six for pall bearers".

[viscousmemories]

Well lucky for me 99% of the people who post here coincidentally adhere to the same grammatical conventions that I adhere to. I doubt I'd be able to follow along very well if people capitalized and punctuated with dramatic variation.

[godfry n. glad]

Okay....I can agree with that.

However, I "know" no "God". If that's what they wish to call their god, that's fine with me. I still find it to be presumptuous, pretentious and propagandistic. As for it being "grammatical" and having a dictionary definition that fits their conceptions...that's due to their (the christians) predominance in this culture; the lexicographers are theists.

I choose not to willingly submit to the subjugation of my language to the delusional whims of the christ cultists.

godfry

(....and....why are "almighty" and "lord" capitalized in the phrase "Almighty Lord God"?)

[lisarea]

Well, I've always acknowledged that the two of you have created a wonderful forum. I may be more effusive in my praise towards livius, because I have so much trouble with your name, "vicious".

You've got a point there! I think a lot of us have a hard time wrapping our heads around vacuousmemories' username. It's long, easy to misread, and doesn't lend itself to easy elision. Easier to just pretend he's not there.

So I changed my answer from before. It IS your fault, voom.

[Godless Dave]

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.

To tell you the truth, I don't respect people's belief in sky-fairies. I respect their right to have such beliefs.

I don't think this attitude is disrespectful of the believer. My father does not respect my belief that "I hate school" is a good reason not to get a graduate degree. A few of my friends do not respect my belief that the amount of pot I smoke isn't bad for me. But they respect my right to hold those beliefs.

[viscousmemories]

You've got a point there! I think a lot of us have a hard time wrapping our heads around vacuousmemories' username. It's long, easy to misread, and doesn't lend itself to easy elision. Easier to just pretend he's not there.

So I changed my answer from before. It IS your fault, voom.
Looks like someone had an extra bowl of Bleaties this morning...

Okay so riddle me this, batfreak. What precise distinction are you making between 'rules' and 'conventions' re: English grammar. Are there any 'rules' according to your view, or do you think 'correct grammar' is an oxymoron?

[Godless Dave]

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."

I suggest a third possibility: "My religion is not special to this atheist in the way it is to me. We have a difference of belief."

[wade-w]

There are many computer networks, but there is only one Internet. :P

In the spirit of all of the nitpicking going on in this thread, there is in fact more than one internet.

[viscousmemories]

There are many computer networks, but there is only one Internet. :P

In the spirit of all of the nitpicking going on in this thread, there is in fact more than one internet.
Okay, okay, dammit. There are two internets. But there's only one Internet. The other internet is Internet2. :D

[Godless Dave]

I will agree that naming (or nicknaming) their god God leads to some ambiguity, as if their god, God, were the definitive deity. What happens is that most (English speaking) believers of monotheistic faiths refer to their god by the same name. Christians, Jews, Bahai, and all those people who don't practice an organized religion but "believe in God", all call their god by the same name (or nickname), a proper noun made out of the common noun "god".

It's confusing. Does the US* national motto, "In God We Trust", refer to the Jewish Elohim/Jehovah, the Christian Elohim/Jehovah/Jesus/Holy Spirit, the deist Creator, the pantheist cosmos, or all of the above? What about the Muslim Allah, who is rarely named "God" in English (although the Arabic name "Allah" is often translated "God" and may be etymologically related to the Hebrew "El"**)? The North American Great Spirit? The Wiccan god-goddess duality? The tao?*** I think many debaters on all sides take advantage of the semantic ambiguity. Ain't language great?


* Yep, I spelled it US instead of U.S. Sue me.
** I am just talking out of my ass here because I am too lazy to look this up.
*** No.

[Socratoad]

Well lucky for me 99% of the people who post here coincidentally adhere to the same grammatical conventions that I adhere to. I doubt I'd be able to follow along very well if people capitalized and punctuated with dramatic variation.

VM , I have a philosophical axiom that I try to follow: whenever I find myself agreeing with the majority I know its time to sit down and quietly reassess my values.

Seriously though, if I may for a moment. I'm sorry that you have been depressed during this season. If company is of any comfort you are not alone in your depression. If it were not for all the creatures here that need my care I would have offed myself years ago. I sometimes think that am only fooling myself into believing that I love all these little guys so, when actually in my heart of hearts it may very well be that they are the only reason that keeps me hanging in.

I was actually telling Lisarea that I had thought of starting a thread for people such as you and me that find this season almost unbearable, but then that would be rather inconsiderate because it would spoil the season of good cheer for others ..... there I've said it. Now that is a perfect example of stream of consciousness writing. I had no intention of writing this .... it sort of wrote itself.

[viscousmemories]

Come to think of it, all the arguments around the fact that there are more gods than the Christian God are irrelevant. The thread is called "Regarding Christians" and is specifically about theological debate with Christians. So it is reasonable to assume that any 'god' references are going to be to the god of Abraham, who is called Allah, and will thus have a capital 'a'.

[wade-w]

Some people intentionally mipsell Amerika or U$A in order to convey their perspectives. Are those the most articulate arguments? Of course not. But they communicate what they're meant to communicate. The choice not to capitalize 'god,' even when conventions call for it, is often a conscious decision, and it communicates exactly what it's meant to communicate.

And here, I think, is the crux of the matter. This is a major part of the salient point in the OP. I'd add that what is communicated is often unnecessarily antagonistic.

[Godless Dave]

(....and....why are "almighty" and "lord" capitalized in the phrase "Almighty Lord God"?)

The same reason "Brave" and "Sir" are capitalized in "Brave Sir Robin". The same reason "Godless" is capitalized in "Godless Dave". It's an adjective used as an honorific title.

[Socratoad]

I have a major complaint :fuming: I have noticed that many of you, or is that all of you .....hmmmmm , do not show proper respect by Capitalizing Atheist and Agnostic, worse still I have been called shitforbrains without the due respect of capitalization or is it Capitalization?

[viscousmemories]

VM , I have a philosophical axiom that I try to follow: whenever I find myself agreeing with the majority I know its time to sit down and quietly reassess my values.

Seriously though, if I may for a moment. I'm sorry that you have been depressed during this season. If company is of any comfort you are not alone in your depression. If it were not for all the creatures here that need my care I would have offed myself years ago. I sometimes think that am only fooling myself into believing that I love all these little guys so, when actually in my heart of hearts it may very well be that they are the only reason that keeps me hanging in.

I was actually telling Lisarea that I had thought of starting a thread for people such as you and me that find this season almost unbearable, but then that would be rather inconsiderate because it would spoil the season of good cheer for others ..... there I've said it. Now that is a perfect example of stream of consciousness writing. I had no intention of writing this .... it sort of wrote itself.
Thanks Mr. Toad. It may be that you are fooling yourself about your love for the creatures, but IMO we all fool ourselves one way or the other, and that seems as good a way as any other I know. :yup:

[Socratoad]

Some people intentionally mipsell Amerika or U$A in order to convey their perspectives. Are those the most articulate arguments? Of course not. But they communicate what they're meant to communicate. The choice not to capitalize 'god,' even when conventions call for it, is often a conscious decision, and it communicates exactly what it's meant to communicate.

And here, I think, is the crux of the matter. This is a major part of the salient point in the OP. I'd add that what is communicated is often unnecessarily antagonistic.

Or is it literary licence?

[godfry n. glad]

I have a major complaint :fuming: I have noticed that many of you, or is that all of you .....hmmmmm , do not show proper respect by Capitalizing Atheist and Agnostic, worse still I have been called shitforbrains without the due respect of capitalization or is it Capitalization?

Damn! I'll Have To Remember To Capitalize "Shitforbrains" In The Future. :giggle:

Is one supposed to capitalize "Severely Deluded Moronic Theist"? It is a nickname, after all.

godfry

[Godless Dave]

Consider yourself as a Christian (you can put on funny little hat if you like).

Don't mind if I do!

http://www.truthspeaker.org/img/davepope.jpg

[lisarea]

Okay so riddle me this, batfreak.

You bastard! That's MR. Batfreak to you!

*sniff*

What precise distinction are you making between 'rules' and 'conventions' re: English grammar. Are there any 'rules' according to your view, or do you think 'correct grammar' is an oxymoron?

No, it's not really an oxymoron. Not entirely. Grammar is, in the ironically purist sense*, a descriptive term for the structures of spoken language. It's basically a word order and inflection thing. Usage describes pre- and proscriptive conventions for grammar, and there are any number of styles of usage. Standard American English is the, um, standard American English. It serves as a sort of lingua franca dialect for Americans. It's what newscasters speak, it's what they teach in grade school, etc. It is official by some combination of consensus and mandate. The mandate is guided by the people who write textbooks and dictionaries and other language guides, for the most part. This is what fourth-grade teachers tell you is proper grammar. They're not wrong, really, but it's really only grammar in the colloquial sense, like the word theory means a wild-assed guess in the colloquial sense.

A step further removed are the conventions of the written language. That is actually far more diverse than grammar or usage. The New York Times Style has different conventions from the MLA has different conventions from Chicago, etc. The way language is rendered in its written form is necessarily more pre- and proscriptive than natural human languages as they are spoken. Written language is like a bastard child of natural and artificial languages, in that, to communicate effectively, it must include a prescribed, artificial layer of convention to the natural elements of the language.

The capitalization of titles is a fairly standard convention. It's almost universal that titles referring to specific entities are capitalized. Almost. But as I understand it, the NYT style, for example, makes exceptions to that. They don't capitalize descriptive titles in some cases. (I'm not entirely sure of the logic behind it, but I'm sure there is some.) For example, according to AP style, you'd be "Viscousmemories, Founding Father of the Freethought Forum" or something, and Jehovah would be "Jehovah, God of the Old Testament." The NYT style, though, prescribes styling that as "Viscousmemories, founding father of the Freethought Forum," and "Jehovah, god of the Old Testament." I'm pretty sure they wouldn't actually do the latter, but unless they have a specific exception, that would technically be correct, according to their conventions. It's a little weird to most people, but it's not wrong.

What it really comes down to, though, is "Who gets to decide what the rules are?" What makes Strunk and White or Fowler any more qualified to claim ownership of such a common property as language? You could argue that Snoop Dogg has contributed more to the English language's development than those guys have. The language doesn't belong to anyone, and even the agreed-upon conventions can't be enforced or anything outside of hierarchical relationships.

* Not really. I have a very coherent justification for semantic prescriptivism. But it's boring even to me.

[Socratoad]

If English/english is a living language, every growing and changing, then why not the accompanying grammar, or even the spelling?

Which of course it is if ya just open yer fucking eyes.

[Godless Dave]

Now we're talking about the difference between descriptive grammar, which describes how spoken language is actually used, and prescriptive grammar, which are rules and conventions that are developed to facilitate a common medium for mutual intelligibility.

It's like the difference between etiquette and behavior. Most of us agree that before boarding an elevator you wait for the people already on it to get off, but there is nothing to actually stop you from barging into the elevator.

[Socratoad]

Then of course there is the languages of the professions that are more often used to obfuscate than to clarify.

[lisarea]

Oops. I think I was wrong before. Apparently, there isn't really a clear consensus on capitalizing titles. I'm sure there used to be, but the trend toward downstyling in the US has been making some headway, I reckon.

I was totally wrong about the AP style. They seem to use the same conventions as the NYT style does. A search on titles capitalize "style guide" shows a remarkable lack of consensus or even an immediately discernable trend. So, using the lower case 'god' as a title is perfectly acceptable according to quite a few style guides.

The argument wasn't really the stylistic conventions in the first place, really, but the perception of disrespect. But the argument that it looks stupid or uneducated to style it lower-case doesn't seem to be holding water as much now.

[viscousmemories]

Okay so riddle me this, batfreak.

You bastard! That's MR. Batfreak to you!

*sniff*

What precise distinction are you making between 'rules' and 'conventions' re: English grammar. Are there any 'rules' according to your view, or do you think 'correct grammar' is an oxymoron?

No, it's not really an oxymoron. Not entirely. Grammar is, in the ironically purist sense*, a descriptive term for the structures of spoken language. It's basically a word order and inflection thing. Usage describes pre- and proscriptive conventions for grammar, and there are any number of styles of usage. Standard American English is the, um, standard American English. It serves as a sort of lingua franca dialect for Americans. It's what newscasters speak, it's what they teach in grade school, etc. It is official by some combination of consensus and mandate. The mandate is guided by the people who write textbooks and dictionaries and other language guides, for the most part. This is what fourth-grade teachers tell you is proper grammar. They're not wrong, really, but it's really only grammar in the colloquial sense, like the word theory means a wild-assed guess in the colloquial sense.

A step further removed are the conventions of the written language. That is actually far more diverse than grammar or usage. The New York Times Style has different conventions from the MLA has different conventions from Chicago, etc. The way language is rendered in its written form is necessarily more pre- and proscriptive than natural human languages as they are spoken. Written language is like a bastard child of natural and artificial languages, in that, to communicate effectively, it must include a prescribed, artificial layer of convention to the natural elements of the language.

The capitalization of titles is a fairly standard convention. It's almost universal that titles referring to specific entities are capitalized. Almost. But as I understand it, the NYT style, for example, makes exceptions to that. They don't capitalize descriptive titles in some cases. (I'm not entirely sure of the logic behind it, but I'm sure there is some.) For example, according to AP style, you'd be "Viscousmemories, Founding Father of the Freethought Forum" or something, and Jehovah would be "Jehovah, God of the Old Testament." The NYT style, though, prescribes styling that as "Viscousmemories, founding father of the Freethought Forum," and "Jehovah, god of the Old Testament." I'm pretty sure they wouldn't actually do the latter, but unless they have a specific exception, that would technically be correct, according to their conventions. It's a little weird to most people, but it's not wrong.

What it really comes down to, though, is "Who gets to decide what the rules are?" What makes Strunk and White or Fowler any more qualified to claim ownership of such a common property as language? You could argue that Snoop Dogg has contributed more to the English language's development than those guys have. The language doesn't belong to anyone, and even the agreed-upon conventions can't be enforced or anything outside of hierarchical relationships.

* Not really. I have a very coherent justification for semantic prescriptivism. But it's boring even to me.

Well duh!

Okay so I didn't really know most of that (except the Snoop Dogg part) and I will henceforth hang up my habit and refrain from accusing people of 'incorrect grammar' when they fail to adhere to conventional standards of capitalization.

Luckily I never went so far as to make any derogatory generalizations about the character, intelligence or education of anyone who does so, so I have less than the full 12 inches of foot to take out of my mouth, unlike some people. :D

But getting back to generally agreed-upon conventions...

I have always understood the god of Abraham to be named 'God' in SAE (as seebs initially claimed) and that 'god' is also his title. Does any generally agreed-upon convention fail to capitalize personal names?

[lisarea]

I have less than the full 12 inches

Well, it's brave of you to admit that.


I have always understood the god of Abraham to be named 'God' in SAE (as seebs initially claimed) and that 'god' is also his title. Does any generally agreed-upon convention fail to capitalize personal names?

I doubt it. I mean, unless that's the way it is, like e.e. cummings. I thought the argument was about titles. I missed the name part. I guess if someone is named God, it would be capitalized. (Unless you are Grace Slick's daughter from the urban legend, but nevermind.)

[Socratoad]

Now we're talking about the difference between descriptive grammar, which describes how spoken language is actually used, and prescriptive grammar, which are rules and conventions that are developed to facilitate a common medium for mutual intelligibility.

It's like the difference between etiquette and behaviour. Most of us agree that before boarding an elevator you wait for the people already on it to get off, but there is nothing to actually stop you from barging into the elevator.

Actually Dave I don't quite know what this thread is about anymore. Being an older person and a writer I tend to be a stickler regarding grammar and spelling, and yet I've become do fucking frustrated by this thread that I've begun just throwing in a bunch of shit that in reality I neither believe or respect in a futile effort to ascertain just what the hell is going on. Frankly the whole exercise is disheartening. People are dying by the thousands as I type this nonsense and frankly most of this thread is nitpicking nonsense.

I suppose it has to do with the generational gap. That which seems to interest and amuse most here truly seems very insane to me. Tis perhaps not inane at all of course. But to me its just a huge fucking waste of time.

Why I chose you to dump my bucket of crap over I have no idea, except I just realize how very unhappy I am here.

Cheers

[Adora]

A strong atheist is a weak atheist, but the reverse implication does not hold.
So theoretically, Zen Buddhists are "strong atheists". And so are Pagans who believe no gods exist, even if they believe a supernatural existence does.

As I said to the administrator guys I am not making a commentary on this forum, only on some of its participants.
So in other words you're a coward, and a troll.

I love that story,
Er, that's nice. Perhaps you could translate it to English for some of us higher primates?

Oh, you're someone who thinks intelligence and logic is proportional to post-counts are you?
No, I think you're a coward and a troll, as pointed out before.

You used a made up word, dude.
So? Have they made laws against that now?

but I don't think it is really accurate to compare this to how it generally occurs and appears.
"It" is what, exactly? So you're saying you spend every second you converse with people during your day antagonising them?

Well, I guess you are a troll...

In fact this response was fairly ridiculous, just quietly.
Rrrrrright. That couldn't possibly be because the comment was ridiculous, could it?

And I'm not the one calling people 'asshats'.
Does that make you feel all woobie inside?

How?
I'm sure you pretend you're intelligence enough to be able to figure it out, so figure it out.

it'll work, honest
You replied when you said you wouldn't, didn't you?

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.
Lets play the troll's semantics game kiddies ^^.

Atheism means you lack a belief in a god. I lack a belief in a god. Therefore, I am an atheist.

Wow! Wasn't that hard! You want to tell people how or why you don't have a belief, then perhaps you should be a little more descriptive. Because either of them can be taken as still holding a spiritual belief or supernatural one, simply sans deity. You can be a Buddhist atheist, or an agnostic atheist, or a scientific atheist, like I said. But "strong" and "weak". Pfff, you can bite me as much as Yanks who bitch about grammar and spelling, and capitalisation of corrupted ambiguous words.

Gimme a T! Gimme an R! Gimme an O-L-L! What does it spell?!

[wade-w]

My irony meter just exploded.

[livius drusus]

I don't know what definition of troll you're using here, Adora, but justaman doesn't even begin to qualify by any standard I've seen.

[seebs]

I don't know what definition of troll you're using here, Adora, but justaman doesn't even begin to qualify by any standard I've seen.

... If it turns out he was trying to troll, we're all gonna feel so guilty for flaming him! :)

[Goliath]

A strong atheist is a weak atheist, but the reverse implication does not hold.
So theoretically, Zen Buddhists are "strong atheists". And so are Pagans who believe no gods exist, even if they believe a supernatural existence does.


I wasn't aware that such pagans existed, but the answer to both of those would be yes.

Oh, and could you please put in some break between your response to me and to justaman? I had a severe bout of confusion for a minute upon reading your post.

[justaman]

No, I think you're a coward and a troll, as pointed out before.
...Are you coming onto me? :chin:

[justaman]

Wrong as usual. I use "xian" instead of "Christian", and I do not believe myself to be smarter than all xians. Therefore the implication that you're trying to draw between using "xian" and claiming to be smarter than all xians is demonstrably false. I am a living counterexample.
I'm having difficulty comprehending how you can possibly say this. You just aren't understanding me. I even put little dashes in the line to highlight the point. I though that was so obvious as to be condescending, and you're still confused.

I'm going to use a different colour this time, perhaps that will work :)

I'll bold it too.

It is irrelevant that you do not believe yourself smarter than all Christians

Now. Read what you've posted above. "Wrong as usual. I use "xian" instead of "Christian", and I do not believe myself to be smarter than all xians."

Me - "It is irrelevant that you believe X."
You - "Wrong. I believe X."
Me - "No...no, I understand that you believe X, but that happens to be irrelevant.
You - "Wrong again, McLutchins. I believe X."
Me - "Look, I know that, but it's irrelevant, you saying you believe X means precisely nothing.
You - "I believe X. Your argument is crushed." :D

We are not going to be able to progress any further until you understand this, I don't think...

[justaman]

That's a great analogy for those who claim that their god has privileges above and beyond all others and that all non-believers must acknowledge that by capitalizing a generic placeholder for the unspeakable name of their deity.
If I say I believe in 'God', you know who I'm talking about. There is a definition you recognise. It is also, incidentally, a definition recognised by every dictionary you choose to refer to. Ergo, 'God' is an accepted name for a particular concept/entity in all of society.

To argue this is like saying "I don't think Zeus is really a name, so I'm going to call him zeus."

I would really like to hear you or Goliath answer why you (presumably) capitalise 'Zeus' yet adamently refuse to capitalise 'God'.

[justaman]

Oh and reading Socratoad's cross-post with mine reminds me that I forgot my favorite semantic nitpick which frankly makes you look stupid, justaman:

There are many computer networks, but there is only one Internet. :P
Hey...baby...I do that shit on purpose aight?? I don't think the internet is a real name - man - because it isn't and so I ain't givin' it no freakin capital letter, I'll die first!!

Etc :P

[justaman]

To tell you the truth, I don't respect people's belief in sky-fairies. I respect their right to have such beliefs.
Well this is what I'm basically driving at. The second part, of course, is fine, but I think it is just a little narrowminded to say you don't respect people's beliefs themselves. What I mean is, there are rationales in existence, justifying a belief in God which are quite difficult to refute. Seebs has a bunch of 'em. (So do, for that matter, a lot of other Christians who post on CF, but he's the only one you guys have met over here, I think, which is why I keep using him as the example. I can provide names for alternatives if necessary :P)

Obviously, we only respect what we personally value, and it's therefore difficult for many atheists to respect something they so ardently disagree with. I'd suggest, though, that perhaps you have not encountered some of the rationales that especially intelligent Christians hold. I have become more than convinced that you can respect the belief in the Christian God, even if you do not personally subscribe to it.

And, I suppose, the danger of a lack of respect for such beliefs encourages one to become complacent and simply assume the said belief is silly and then project the idea of this silliness on the believer. That is where the disingenuous leap is made, I think. (Though that's certainly not to say you do this, Dave.)

:)

[Adora]

I don't know what definition of troll you're using here, Adora, but justaman doesn't even begin to qualify by any standard I've seen.

Have you even read this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1349&page=2)?

[livius drusus]

I'm in the habit of reading threads I post in, yes. Meanwhile, your accusations were made in this thread and again, I can think of no standard by which his posts here could be considered trolling.

[Zoot]

This post, no longer even relevant.

[Goliath]

It is irrelevant that you do not believe yourself smarter than all Christians


Wrong again, as the fact that I do not consider myself to be smarter than all xians, along with the fact that I use "xian" instead of "Christian" shows, again, that your argument fails, because your argument is concerned with the (false) implication that those who use "xian" instead of "Christian" necessarily fancy themselves smarter than all xians. That is wrong. Period.

[seebs]

I think you're talking past each other.

Justaman's point is that, no matter how you intend that usage, the derisive undertone and/or connotations will be perceived by many or most listeners, whether or not you actually think that. In short, whether or not you mean that, that is what people will hear. That may be true, and certainly, the question of whether you mean it that way is largely irrelevant.

[justaman]

What seebs said. I 100% believe you when you say you don't consider yourself smarter than all Christians. But that does not mean that this isn't precisely what you appear to be implying, even if you are not. Eh, even that was unnecessary. Seebs said it better than me (Again. Bastard.):

"...no matter how you intend that usage, the derisive undertone and/or connotations will be perceived by many or most listeners, whether or not you actually think that."

That's the point, not whether you intend this or not. Your intentions are irrelevant.

[Goliath]

I think you're talking past each other.

Justaman's point is that, no matter how you intend that usage, the derisive undertone and/or connotations will be perceived by many or most listeners, whether or not you actually think that. In short, whether or not you mean that, that is what people will hear. That may be true, and certainly, the question of whether you mean it that way is largely irrelevant.

And your point continues to be irrelevant. I don't care about how most xians perceive my use of "xian". For the purposes of this thread, I am only concerned with debunking the claim that if one uses "xian" instead of "Christian", then one must think onesself to be smarter than all xians.

Again, that is wrong. I am a living, breathing counterexample.

[livius drusus]

Can you quote justaman or anyone else saying that if one uses xian, one must think onesself smarter than all Christians? Thanks.

[Goliath]

Can you quote justaman or anyone else saying that if one uses xian, one must think onesself smarter than all Christians? Thanks.

Certainly.



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'.

[livius drusus]

I don't see the word "must" in there anywhere.

[Goliath]

I don't see the word "must" in there anywhere.

But did you see the word "implication"? If we let P be the proposition "I write 'xian' instead of 'Christian'.", and if we let Q be the proposition "I believe that I am smarter than all xians." Then justaman has claimed that the proposition P ==> Q is valid (where "==>" means "implies"...get yer head out of the gutter... :D ). Thus, justaman is claiming that if P is true then Q must follow.

However, as I have shown many, many, many times in this thread, P ==> Q is not valid.

[seebs]

It's not a question of what you believe, but of what people (not just Christians, but many other people) will reasonably infer from context.

Language, outside of mathematics, is not entirely precise, and is subject to such things.

[Goliath]

It's not a question of what you believe, but of what people (not just Christians, but many other people) will reasonably infer from context.


And when I care about what most xians think about any topic whatsoever, you'll be the first to know.

[seebs]

I don't see the word "must" in there anywhere.

But did you see the word "implication"? If we let P be the proposition "I write 'xian' instead of 'Christian'.", and if we let Q be the proposition "I believe that I am smarter than all xians." Then justaman has claimed that the proposition P ==> Q is valid (where "==>" means "implies"...get yer head out of the gutter... :D ). Thus, justaman is claiming that if P is true then Q must follow.


However, as I have shown many, many, many times in this thread, P ==> Q is not valid.

AH-HAH!

The word "imply" has two senses; one is formal logic, where "implies" means "logically requires". The other is connotation, where "implies" means "suggests".

Justaman is using this in the non-term-of-art sense.

[Goliath]

AH-HAH!

The word "imply" has two senses; one is formal logic, where "implies" means "logically requires". The other is connotation, where "implies" means "suggests".

Justaman is using this in the non-term-of-art sense.

I don't believe you, as if you were correct, justaman would've had ample opportunity to clarify his reasoning. He has not done so.

[livius drusus]

No, sorry, I don't really do that P Q stuff. It's not a language that works for me. (I blame the English major ;) ) As far as I can see, his point is that the implication in the word can exist apart from authorial intent.

[seebs]

It's not a question of what you believe, but of what people (not just Christians, but many other people) will reasonably infer from context.


And when I care about what most xians think about any topic whatsoever, you'll be the first to know.

But, as I was saying, this isn't about what Christians think, but what anyone who is using normal communications skills will think. :)

[Goliath]

No, sorry, I don't really do that P Q stuff. It's not a language that works for me. (I blame the English major ;) )


It's just a statement of logic. justaman was trying to say that if anyone uses "xian" instead of "Christian", then that person thinks that they are smarter than all xians.

For example, the statement "All women have blue eyes"*, translated as "If a person is a woman, then that person has blue eyes" is false, as there exists one woman who does not have blue eyes.

Similarly, I am a counterexample to the statement that justaman tried to make.

I hope that was more clear.

* - By this statement, I'm not trying to say anything about women, or people with blue eyes...I could've just as easily said "All canines have 17 ears" or something else equally ridiculous.

[seebs]

AH-HAH!

The word "imply" has two senses; one is formal logic, where "implies" means "logically requires". The other is connotation, where "implies" means "suggests".

Justaman is using this in the non-term-of-art sense.

I don't believe you, as if you were correct, justaman would've had ample opportunity to clarify his reasoning. He has not done so.

It's not reasoning, it's terminology. And you and I are probably the only people here who would EVER read the word "implies" as a term of art in a context like this.

It wasn't until you talked about "P implies Q" that it occurred to me you could be reading the word that way. I certainly wasn't. If I say that someone's behavior "implies" a belief, I don't mean logically requires, I mean "leads me to infer".

[Goliath]

Again, seebs, if you're correct, then why hasn't justaman even tried to clarify his use of "implies"?

[Zoot]

The only way the perception of the implication will go away is if people use the term without intending the implication. I remember when I was Christian, it annoyed me that other Christians would claim they're Christian, but "not religious". Their reason was that "religious" and "religion" had implications of boring, conservative, dreary routine ritual. Of course, the only way that implication could be removed is if people used it and defied it.

[seebs]

Again, seebs, if you're correct, then why hasn't justaman even tried to clarify his use of "implies"?

Because, while he probably has seen the other meaning in use in a formal context, it probably hasn't occurred to him that anyone would ever read it that way in any other context. At least, that's my theory. His behavior implies (note conversational usage!) that he hasn't realized that you're reading the word as strict logical implication, or thought of why you'd read it that way.

[Goliath]

I still don't believe that's the case, but I'm willing to wait for justaman to return to this thread to clarify what he's talking about.

[justaman]

Jesus Christ dude. *head shaking*

If I say:

Look I believe you...

I 100% believe you when you say you don't consider yourself smarter than all Christians.

what you appear to be implying, even if you are not.

Why on Earth would you think that I mean implying in the formal logic sense?? That would be a complete contradiction and also, for that matter, completely out of context in about every instance I used it in. I'm having a real hard time believing that you could have misunderstood the context, especially from the last quote I provided.

justaman was trying to say that if anyone uses "xian" instead of "Christian", then that person thinks that they are smarter than all xians.
This is the strawman I told you about earlier. Clearly you have decided to ignore me and continue attacking the strawman :P Kill that straw!

Again, refer to the above quote. I believe that you do not consider yourself smarter than Christians, but that is - and always has been - irrelevant. That being the case, why would my point be that you believe yourself smarter than Christians?? Hint: it isn't and also never has been - as everyone but you appears to have recognised.

The point is that the word itself carries derogatory baggage. It's usage displays that baggage, regardless of your position on the issue. It SUGGESTS something which may or may not be true, but is likely to be inferred regardless. That is the problem with it.

Recognising that, one must question why you choose to use it. In fact if these are the implications of using the word and if you really are as abhorent of giving off those signals as you say you are, why do you insist on using it?? It's only misrepresenting you by your own - apparent - admission.

[livius drusus]

I hope that was more clear.

Oh, it's clear enough; it's just entirely unrelated to my usual understanding of the word "imply". The P and Q stuff would be utterly useless in, say, an examination of the emotional effect of word choice in poetry or prose.

Anyway, justaman has answered quite thoroughly at this point. I will say that I've been reading this thread from the beginning and it never once occurred to me that you were reading "imply" is some formal logic sense. I don't think I knew it had a formal logic meaning, truth be told. :shrug:

[Goliath]

If I say...Why on Earth would you think that I mean implying in the formal logic sense??

Because you never bothered even once to clarify your (IMO) unusual usage of that word.

...but that is - and always has been - irrelevant.

No, it continues to be relevant. Next!

The point is that the word itself carries derogatory baggage. It's usage displays that baggage, regardless of your position on the issue. It SUGGESTS something which may or may not be true, but is likely to be inferred regardless.

The instant that I give a shit about what xians think of my using "xian" instead of "Christian", I'll let you know.



Recognising that, one must question why you choose to use it.



No, one mustn't do jack shit...there you go with your overbearing, controlling attitude. I will not submit. Period.

why do you insist on using it??


Because it's a convenient abbreviation.

It's only misrepresenting you

No it isn't. Again, you are wrong (see the past several pages as to why).

[Zoot]

Goliath, there's general agreement that use of the term suggests condescension. You use the term. Therefore, it suggests condescension to people, both Christian and non-Christian. You've said you don't give a shit that people get the wrong impression. Fair enough.

What I don't understand is you saying that it doesn't misrepresent you. Misrepresent means to "give a false or misleading account of". If it is true that you are not actually being condescending, then a term that gives people the impression that is misrepresenting you. If it's true that it's not misrepresenting you, then you are actually being condescending.

Which is it? Which of the following statements is false? Because they cannot all be true.

1. To misrepresent is to give a misleading account.
2. Using "xian" instead of "Christian" suggests to listeners that you are being condescending.
3. You are not actually being condescending.
4. Using "xian" instead of "Christian" doesn't misrepresent you to your listeners.

[Goliath]

Goliath, there's general agreement that use of the term suggests condescension. You use the term. Therefore, it suggests condescension to people, both Christian and non-Christian. You've said you don't give a shit that people get the wrong impression. Fair enough.

What I don't understand is you saying that it doesn't misrepresent you. Misrepresent means to "give a false or misleading account of". If it is true that you are not actually being condescending, then a term that gives people the impression that is misrepresenting you. If it's true that it's not misrepresenting you, then you are actually being condescending.

Which is it? Which of the following statements is false? Because they cannot all be true.

1. To misrepresent is to give a misleading account.
2. Using "xian" instead of "Christian" suggests to listeners that you are being condescending.
3. You are not actually being condescending.
4. Using "xian" instead of "Christian" doesn't misrepresent you to your listeners.

Ah, but is the "general agreement" only amongst people on this board, or of the general populace? I'm not convinced that the latter is the case, hence why I'm not convinced that my using "xian" instead of "Christian" is a misrepresentation at all.

Furthermore, even if it was a misrepresentation, then the problem would be with those who are offended, not I.

[Zoot]

"Christian" itself was originally a derogatory, condescending term, applied to the Nazarenes.

[Goliath]

So fucking what?

[seebs]

Why on Earth would you think that I mean implying in the formal logic sense?? That would be a complete contradiction and also, for that matter, completely out of context in about every instance I used it in. I'm having a real hard time believing that you could have misunderstood the context, especially from the last quote I provided.

Quick layman's guide to interacting with Goliath: He's a mathematician to the core, and if you don't tell him you're not speaking in strict connotationless language, he generally reads your text that way, and that does imply using formal terms by preference to informal ones. If language is ambiguous, his first step to disambiguate is to choose the least ambiguous meanings of words, I think.

[justaman]

Because you never bothered even once to clarify your (IMO) unusual usage of that word.
Are you telling me that you didn't know 'imply' meant 'suggest without saying'?

No, it continues to be relevant. Next!

Hang on a minute. You just admit that you've completely misconstrued a fairly important - and I should think glaringly obvious - description of what using 'xian' results in...and yet you still think your argument is sound? :P

The instant that I give a shit about what xians think of my using "xian" instead of "Christian", I'll let you know.
So this is what it comes down to? "I don't imply negative connotations towards Christians and if Christians don't like it it, they can suck my wang."

Quite the egalitarian, aren't you? :D

No, one mustn't do jack shit...there you go with your overbearing, controlling attitude. I will not submit. Period.
Oh come now, Spartacus, I think we both know you will.

Because it's a convenient abbreviation.
No you don't. I'm not going to toy with you anymore, I think this thread is just about ready for the big archive in the sky. You don't use it because it's convenient, you use it because you know very well that some Christians see it as being antagonising and you like poking in barbs wherever you can. Your entire argument throughout this thread screams of it. "The instant I give a shit about what xians think etc"

You may think being so dismissive is virtuous, and perhaps some of your buddies agree. But to anyone with an ounce of sense, you appear conceited, contemptuous and wantonly ignorant of how pathetic your gesture is, and this is - of course - magnified by the intensity with which you defend its usage.

I had hopes of you perhaps admitting a shortcoming. Apparently this is not something you are going to do. :(

It's only misrepresenting youNo it isn't.
Exactly. I think that all of those connotations the rest of the world bar you are aware of represent your position fantastically, I could not agree more. :)

Now tell me to go fuck myself and this thread can find a sad if predictable end. :wink:

[Godless Dave]

For the purposes of this thread, I am only concerned with debunking the claim that if one uses "xian" instead of "Christian", then one must think onesself to be smarter than all xians.

No one has made that claim so you are arguing against a straw man.

[Goliath]

Are you telling me that you didn't know 'imply' meant 'suggest without saying'?

No.



Hang on a minute. You just admit that you've completely misconstrued a fairly important - and I should think glaringly obvious - description of what using 'xian' results in...and yet you still think your argument is sound? :P



I have misunderstood you, yes. But you keep confusing "relevant" with "relevant to me".

So this is what it comes down to?

Yes, essentially. Why should I care about whether or not any xians are offended by my using "xian"?

Oh come now, Spartacus, I think we both know you will.

My name is not Sparticus, and no, I will not.


No you don't.


Yes I do. Next!

[Zoot]

So fucking what?

So I was more or less agreeing with you that it's silly to take too seriously. Though judging by this delightful three-word response, perhaps not taking things seriously is not a notion you're in a mood to pick up on.

[Blake]

justaman, you've made a lot of mistakes in this thread, some of which have been pointed out and almost none of which you've admitted; so before this thread dies, as dear God it bloody well ought to, I'd like to pick up some of the slack.

For the sake of clarification, I agree that most of this thread has consisted of vehemently picking some of the tiniest of nits. For example, I think "xian" is inherently disrespectful, that "god" can be, and that the first meaning of "implies" that should pop to anyone's mind when using language rather than logic is "suggests that."

Getting to my points:

1) There is no such thing as "the Christian God." Dictionaries are useful, but quickly become of very limited help, particularly when messing in the mysteries of religion. The Catholic god is demonstrably not the same as the Calvinist god, and both are very distinct from the Mormon god. So when one says "God," even in a wholly Christian context, ambiguity reigns.

2) Lots of gods are named/titled "God." YHWH, Allah, Jesus, and Krishna are just a few. I'm no student of comparative religion, but I suspect that most major religions freely refer to "God."

3) "God" is used as both (sometimes simultaneously) a proper noun and a title. This legimately annoys people who value reasonable precision in language.

4) As lisarea has brilliantly elucidated, grammar too has its limitations, which again can be reached quite quickly. Defying conventions by reasoned choice is always a legitimate move, whether it's refusing to capitalise "god" or eliminating apostrophes. I suggest you reread her posts and do her the courtesy of responding to them.

5) Threads work best when they're devoted to a single purpose. The OP led me to believe that the point of this thread was essentially to discuss, in general terms, the inadvisability of writing "xian" and "god" in forum conversations with Christians. However, the following statements

I made it quite obvious that I was going to be raising this issue with you in this forum in the blog

I made it very clear to you that I earnestly hoped for an opportunity to attack your abhorantly ignorant attitude.

All I can do - and all I was ever 'threatening' to do - is confront you and your attitude in this forum.
instead strongly suggest to me that there was another point to this thread, for you to confront Goliath specifically. From your prior forum experiences, I'm sure you know that threads with multiple purposes, especially ones confronting a specific person, and more especially such threads that are not honest up-front in that intent, are far more likely to devolve into unproductive shitstorms than not. Maybe not as long and tortured as this one has been, but nonetheless, predictably tangled and antagonizing.

To sum up, I think you've acted very irresponsibly and poorly by starting a general discussion with the simultaneous aim of confronting a specific individual, as well as by insulting godfry up and down without justification, among other things. The irony meter has exploded several times in this thread, of course, but for me no more so than after you praised this forum's approach to freethought, then shut yourself off from engaging godfry's coherent arguments and heaped abuse on him. You owe a bunch of people apologies, and for your own sake and the forum's, you've got a lot of learning to do.

[edited to remove the unnecessary and inflammatory profanity and imperative. I apologize for meeting abuse with abuse, to justaman and everyone in general. My point, which I should have made explicit, was that as a representative of the lurking audience I do not agree with justaman's characterizations of it, and I approve not at all of his style and arguments--in fact, was thoroughly incensed by them.]

[seebs]

I spawn new thread on the question of "the X God" vs. "the X view of God."

[justaman]

1) There is no such thing as "the Christian God." Dictionaries are useful, but quickly become of very limited help, particularly when messing in the mysteries of religion. The Catholic god is demonstrably not the same as the Calvinist god, and both are very distinct from the Mormon god. So when one says "God," even in a wholly Christian context, ambiguity reigns.
What's your point, exactly? I agree with you, but I'm not sure this impacts on my argument one way or the other.

Which is - to remind you before I go any further - regarding the attitude of militant atheists. The whole 'xian' thing was only ever illustrative of the main argument. You later say that you thought this argument was all about using 'xian'. It wasn't, really, that was just an observable symptom.

2) Lots of gods are named/titled "God." YHWH, Allah, Jesus, and Krishna are just a few. I'm no student of comparative religion, but I suspect that most major religions freely refer to "God."
Again, I'm not sure of your point, because the fact of the matter is when talking to Christians, 'God' is distinct from every one of those other entities you mentioned. Remember this is about Christians specifically. :)

3) "God" is used as both (sometimes simultaneously) a proper noun and a title. This legimately annoys people who value reasonable precision in language.
Certainly, and it annoys me too. I couldn't tell you how many times I've suggested to Christians on CF that spelling The Truth and The Way which lead to HIS Ultimate GLORY is inflicting unnecessary pain on everyone else. :P

4) As lisarea has brilliantly elucidated, grammar too has its limitations, which again can be reached quite quickly. Defying conventions by reasoned choice is always a legitimate move, whether it's refusing to capitalise "god" or eliminating apostrophes. I suggest you reread her posts and do her the courtesy of responding to them.
I read them and they were quite interesting. But once again, it really isn't about 'god' vs 'God'. I would suggest that since no one - including her - had realised this legitimate alternative, then one using the non-capitalised version would necessarily be doing it with the negative connotations in mind. If that is the case - and I think it is - then that individual probably possesses the attitude I am making my complaint about.

5) Threads work best when they're devoted to a single purpose. The OP led me to believe that the point of this thread was essentially to discuss, in general terms, the inadvisability of writing "xian" and "god" in forum conversations with Christians.
In short, no. :)

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?
That's the over all point. 'Xian' certainly was a point to be argued, but that was more to establish whether someone using it necessarily fell into the category of what I'm talking about above. I felt - and still feel - that its usage precisely portrays such a person.

And in actual fact it still hasn't come out yet but a subordinate point I had really been hoping might be pursued over 'xian' was:
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.

However, the following statements

instead strongly suggest to me that there was another point to this thread, for you to confront Goliath specifically.
I wanted to confront his attitude specifically, and indeed anyone else who happened to agree with him...hence why I made it a public thread. If I had wanted to have words with him and him alone I'd have PMed him ;)

From your prior forum experiences, I'm sure you know that threads with multiple purposes, especially ones confronting a specific person, and more especially such threads that are not honest up-front in that intent, are far more likely to devolve into unproductive shitstorms than not. Maybe not as long and tortured as this one has been, but nonetheless, predictably tangled and antagonizing.
So all threads must be what...20 posts of neat succinct rejoinders with a 3 paragraphs summary at it's conclusion?

Yes, of course I forcasted for some 'shitstorms', but then I think that was not only unavoidable but necessary in a lot of ways. It has also been a lot of fun, and that's really only why I bother posting on these forums at all :D But I'm not sure it's quite as tangled as you are making out. Certainly there are a few members who won't have me on their buddy lists, but does that really matter?

To sum up, I think you've acted very irresponsibly and poorly by starting a general discussion with the simultaneous aim of confronting a specific individual, as well as by insulting godfry up and down without justification, among other things.
What, by saying he appears ignorant and stupid for insisting on his personal grammar set?

I don't know whether he is ignorant and stupid or not, my point was, that is how he appears. If he finds this insulting, tough. It happens to be the truth of the matter.

Perhaps you'd like to now go and find all the posts which I could have (but didn't and never will ;) ) found insulting :P I think they rather outweigh my small sling at Godfry :D I think that karma is more than realigned.

The irony meter has exploded several times in this thread, of course, but for me no more so than after you praised this forum's approach to freethought, then shut yourself off from engaging godfry's coherent arguments and heaped abuse on him.
Where was Godfry coherent??

Honestly, exactly which interchange are you complaining about? I'm rereading my posts to Godfry and can't find anywhere where the man has been even vaguely constructive...

[edited to remove the unnecessary and inflammatory profanity and imperative. I apologize for meeting abuse with abuse, to justaman and everyone in general. My point, which I should have made explicit, was that as a representative of the lurking audience I do not agree with justaman's characterizations of it, and I approve not at all of his style and arguments--in fact, was thoroughly incensed by them.]
You don't say. Well I'm glad you finally posted something about them then, rather than just stewing. I get the feeling you really should have done this sooner. :)

[lisarea]

2) Lots of gods are named/titled "God." YHWH, Allah, Jesus, and Krishna are just a few. I'm no student of comparative religion, but I suspect that most major religions freely refer to "God."
Again, I'm not sure of your point, because the fact of the matter is when talking to Christians, 'God' is distinct from every one of those other entities you mentioned. Remember this is about Christians specifically. :)

I've found that it's often necessary to remind some Christians that everything isn't about them specifically.

Personally, I prefer to refer to a god' or 'your god' or something like that, but I can see the reasoning behind adopting a stylistic construction such as lowercasing the word god, too.


I read them and they were quite interesting. But once again, it really isn't about 'god' vs 'God'. I would suggest that since no one - including her - had realised this legitimate alternative, then one using the non-capitalised version would necessarily be doing it with the negative connotations in mind. If that is the case - and I think it is - then that individual probably possesses the attitude I am making my complaint about.

Are you talking about the titles? Of course most of the people you are complaining about are intentionally lowercasing the word god when used as a title. Nobody said they weren't, as far as I'm aware.

My argument that titles are downstyled is a response to your sweeping claim that it makes people look uneducated or stupid or whatever it is you said. In fact, that is not nearly as universal a convention as you claimed, and I did point that out in the first place. It was only when I looked it up later that I realized that the trend toward using the lowercase is much more pervasive now than it was the last time I was paid to care about that. Which is relevant only to your claims. If you're going to call someone ignorant about some subject, I've found it's often helpful to look it up and make sure you know what you're talking about first.


What, by saying he appears ignorant and stupid for insisting on his personal grammar set?

I don't know whether he is ignorant and stupid or not, my point was, that is how he appears. If he finds this insulting, tough. It happens to be the truth of the matter.

I just have a difficult time believing that you genuinely believe anyone here is stupid or ignorant for using a stylistic construction like that.

Do you excoriate people who write Micro$oft? Do you honestly believe that they do so because they don't know the difference between the letter S and a dollar sign? Do you honestly believe that intelligent, articulate people such as the ones you've accused here are ignorant of the stylistic conventions you claim are universal?

You can make the argument that using that style is offensive, and you have done so, but you cannot at the same time argue that it makes people look stupid and ignorant. It's very clearly not true, and it just kind of ends up biting you in the ass.

[viscousmemories]

You can make the argument that using that style is offensive, and you have done so, but you cannot at the same time argue that it makes people look stupid and ignorant. It's very clearly not true, and it just kind of ends up biting you in the ass.
That's a good point. As long as justaman's bitching about language precision he should be more precise himself. I would say intentionally using atypical spelling or capitalization to deride others makes a person appear more petty and nasty than stupid or ignorant. Still, I don't think the use of 'xian' or 'god' alone says anything important about the quality of someones* character.




* I know the rule is no apostrophe there, but I swear that just looks wrong.

[justaman]

I would say intentionally using atypical spelling or capitalization to deride others makes a person appear more petty and nasty than stupid or ignorant.
Surely this is a matter of spades and shovels...

[justaman]

I've found that it's often necessary to remind some Christians that everything isn't about them specifically.

Personally, I prefer to refer to a god' or 'your god' or something like that, but I can see the reasoning behind adopting a stylistic construction such as lowercasing the word god, too.
No problems here. I am curious, though, about the specific reason why one prefers to use 'your god' over 'God'. It almost sounds like your concerned about making an admission of some kind :P

Are you talking about the titles? Of course most of the people you are complaining about are intentionally lowercasing the word god when used as a title. Nobody said they weren't, as far as I'm aware.
Well good, that's who I'm talking about. :)

My argument that titles are downstyled is a response to your sweeping claim that it makes people look uneducated or stupid or whatever it is you said. In fact, that is not nearly as universal a convention as you claimed, and I did point that out in the first place. It was only when I looked it up later that I realized that the trend toward using the lowercase is much more pervasive now than it was the last time I was paid to care about that. Which is relevant only to your claims. If you're going to call someone ignorant about some subject, I've found it's often helpful to look it up and make sure you know what you're talking about first.
That's marvellous, but it doesn't have a heckuva lot to do with what I'm talking about which is - to stipulate - specific brands of attitude.

If there was, for instance, someone who was a very calm, non-antagonising type of person when interacting with Christians who said 'No, no, I call him 'god' because that was what I grew up believing to be the correct grammar', that would be one thing. But of course this isn't the case for anyone here.

I'm not really sure that providing evidence that using 'god' as an acceptable title is really here or there either, since it doesn't really indicate who it's being accepted by.

I just have a difficult time believing that you genuinely believe anyone here is stupid or ignorant for using a stylistic construction like that.
It's for the motivation, not the usage.

Do you excoriate people who write Micro$oft?
If they decided to write that in a letter to a Microsoft board of directors, for instance, absolutely.

It's a question of context. Atheist buddies writing 'xian' to each other I don't much care about. It's when they decide to use it - along with a rather ridiculous observation - in a Christian's blog, for instance, that I object.

Do you honestly believe that intelligent, articulate people such as the ones you've accused here are ignorant of the stylistic conventions you claim are universal?
Whoa, this is a bit off-kilter. I'm not saying people are ignorant for not knowing the capitalisation rules for a specific word - they know them very well, that's the point. I'm saying they are ignorant for choosing to use lower-case in spite of the (commonly accepted) rules and thinking this acheives anything but presenting a poor reflection of themselves.

If there are people out there who really don't know the Christian god is called 'God', they are not who I am talking about.

You can make the argument that using that style is offensive, and you have done so, but you cannot at the same time argue that it makes people look stupid and ignorant. It's very clearly not true, and it just kind of ends up biting you in the ass.
You're not understanding why I call it stupid and ignorant. It is not because of being ignorant of accepted grammer. It is because they are consciously preferring an offensive style to an innocuous one and thinking themselves grand for doing so.

[lisarea]

No problems here. I am curious, though, about the specific reason why one prefers to use 'your god' over 'God'. It almost sounds like your concerned about making an admission of some kind :P

What the fuck?

Seriously, I have no idea what you're getting at there. If you'd like to accuse me of something, please feel free.

As to the rest of your post, I will take your denial that you said people sounded ignorant and stupid as an admission that you were wrong.

[justaman]

What the fuck?

Seriously, I have no idea what you're getting at there. If you'd like to accuse me of something, please feel free.
I think you misunderstood me.

That is, if you choose - when talking to Christians - to say 'your god' over 'God', it appears to me the reasoning is close to "I don't like to say 'God', because you (the Christian) might infer that I'm making some kind of admission that he might be real".

This is the terrible thing I accuse you of :P

As to the rest of your post, I will take your denial that you said people sounded ignorant and stupid as an admission that you were wrong.
Ok, but you'd be a fair way off the mark if you were to do that. :wink: I don't remember ever denying saying it made people sound ignorant and stupid, I think it does, but for the reasons I stipulated, not the reasons you appear to think I use.

[Blake]

Your focus is that deliberately using formulations like "xian" or "god" in conversastion with a Christian inevitably betrays an intent to antagonise, which is both stupid and ignorant. I agree in the case of "xian," but not in the case of "god." It can also indicate an uncompromising intent to express the truth with as much precision as possible as the speaker understands it. I don't understand why you can't or won't acknowledge this.

For instance, it wouldn't be my choice to lowercase the "g," but I would probably use an article before the word in any case, e.g. "your God," "a God," etc. That might well antagonise a Christian who believes there is only one true God and He is as they understand Him to be, but that's not my problem, it's theirs. It is a case of theology, not grammar.

[godfry n. glad]

Y'know... I still see the demand that I acknowledge and use the terminology they select for their god as an arrogant conceit.

[seebs]

Y'know... I still see the demand that I acknowledge and use the terminology they select for their god as an arrogant conceit.

Who's "they"? This is a linguistic thing going back centuries. The people who "selected" this terminology are long dead. The rest of us are just holding to a consistent historical usage.

I just can't see the problem. If you want to refer to "a god" or "your god" or whatever, go ahead. But everyone knows what the word "God" means and how it's used, and I don't see any point in trying to change that aspect of the language; we still use it.

[viscousmemories]

I would say intentionally using atypical spelling or capitalization to deride others makes a person appear more petty and nasty than stupid or ignorant.
Surely this is a matter of spades and shovels...
Ah, okay. I thought you were using the words 'stupid' and 'ignorant' literally, I didn't realize you were using them as generic insults. That being the case your entire 'argument' in this thread seems to amount to nothing more than a sweeping condemnation of everyone who uses language you personally disapprove of. Frankly that seems as petty and nasty to me as the behavior you're complaining about here. Why does either deserve any attention?

[godfry n. glad]

Y'know... I still see the demand that I acknowledge and use the terminology they select for their god as an arrogant conceit.

Who's "they"? This is a linguistic thing going back centuries. The people who "selected" this terminology are long dead. The rest of us are just holding to a consistent historical usage.

I just can't see the problem. If you want to refer to "a god" or "your god" or whatever, go ahead. But everyone knows what the word "God" means and how it's used, and I don't see any point in trying to change that aspect of the language; we still use it.

"They" are those who demand that "god" be capitalized whenever it is in reference to the god they worship. Agreed, those who initiated the usage are long dead....and probably from a society where failure to acknowledge the supremacy of their god (through petty measures like capitalization of the term) warrented the death penalty. I view that decision as theological, rather than linguistic. I have no problem with you using it as you will, just don't demand that I do likewise.

godfry

[seebs]

"They" are those who demand that "god" be capitalized whenever it is in reference to the god they worship.

Never seen such a thing happen.

I do think "God" should be capitalized when it's a proper noun. I don't care which god is being referred to; if it's a monotheist one, then it's a proper noun, and should be capitalized.

Agreed, those who initiated the usage are long dead....and probably from a society where failure to acknowledge the supremacy of their god (through petty measures like capitalization of the term) warrented the death penalty. I view that decision as theological, rather than linguistic. I have no problem with you using it as you will, just don't demand that I do likewise.

It's just grammar, having nothing to do with who believes in what.

[justaman]

Your focus is that deliberately using formulations like "xian" or "god" in conversastion with a Christian inevitably betrays an intent to antagonise, which is both stupid and ignorant. I agree in the case of "xian," but not in the case of "god." It can also indicate an uncompromising intent to express the truth with as much precision as possible as the speaker understands it. I don't understand why you can't or won't acknowledge this.
In all honesty I'm quite happy to concede this. I do think there is still some of the same motivation in prompting one to use 'god' instead of 'God' when referring to the specific entity, but I can see that there would be instances where this isn't in fact the case, and certainly not to the same extent.

This wasn't ever a point I really wanted to argue, I was sort of backed into that particular corner out of necessity (I'm talking about 'god' vs 'God' here). I used it to express how I felt in the OP, I didn't to use it as a universal example to the same extent as 'xian'.

For instance, it wouldn't be my choice to lowercase the "g," but I would probably use an article before the word in any case, e.g. "your God," "a God," etc. That might well antagonise a Christian who believes there is only one true God and He is as they understand Him to be, but that's not my problem, it's theirs. It is a case of theology, not grammar.
See this is where I think a lot of people have become confused with what I'm saying. 'God' gramatically requires a lower-case g in most instances. So it would be "your god", "a god". I've never disputed that nor would I have any desire to.

It is when you refer to the Christian god specifically by his name, for example, "I don't think god exists" should be "I don't think God exists" in that context. In the OP, I was trying to illustrate that I used the first consciously rather than the second, because I thought it would demonstrate a point to Christians. That argument wound up becoming "Everyone who does this is doing it for the same reason" which it probably shouldn't have. Everyone, however, who uses 'xian' is doing this, I think, and they are who I am talking about.

Once again, this thread was intended to be about atheistic attitudes rather than grammar, which I only used as an example.

[Zoot]

God as a title/proper name and god as a noun are two different words.

[justaman]

Ah, okay. I thought you were using the words 'stupid' and 'ignorant' literally, I didn't realize you were using them as generic insults.
Not exactly. I think someone insisting on using 'xian' is trying to be somewhat petty and nasty, but the desire to do this - I think - is born of one being somewhat stupid and ignorant.

The complaint in your antecedent appeared to be that I highlighted one symptom of the problem rather than another, hence why I think it's spades and shovels.

That being the case your entire 'argument' in this thread seems to amount to nothing more than a sweeping condemnation of everyone who uses language you personally disapprove of.
This is what you've gleaned from what I've been saying? How disappointing. :)

[viscousmemories]

Not exactly. I think someone insisting on using 'xian' is trying to be somewhat petty and nasty, but the desire to do this - I think - is born of one being somewhat stupid and ignorant.
Okay well I can understand your thinking that it's petty and nasty for someone to use xian to deliberately antagonize Christians, and I agree. But I still don't see any reason to assume the person therefore lacks intelligence or knowledge. I've met plenty of really smart, well-educated people who are petty and nasty when it comes to certain people/issues.

This is what you've gleaned from what I've been saying? How disappointing. :)
No, that's not really all I've gleaned and I apologize for the fact that it comes off sounding dismissive. I do agree with what you said to Blake above, though - expanded somewhat. That you should have confined your comments to a reflection of your own behavior instead of projecting the same intent on everyone who uses xian and god in debate with Christians.

[justaman]

Okay well I can understand your thinking that it's petty and nasty for someone to use xian to deliberately antagonize Christians, and I agree. But I still don't see any reason to assume the person therefore lacks intelligence or knowledge. I've met plenty of really smart, well-educated people who are petty and nasty when it comes to certain people/issues.
I completely agree. I have been imprecise. People who do this give an appearance - IMO - of being stupid and ignorant. That's not to say they actually are. Actually this was something I said in the OP - that I've seen smart atheists use 'xian' - but that's sort of gotten a bit lost as I have carelessly perhaps allowed 'appear to be' evolve to 'is' over the thread.

Godfry, perhaps this most obvious example of what I'm talking about on this thread, is an example of this. It is quite clear from his posts that he is neither stupid nor ignorant, and yet I see stupidity and ignorance championed in his adament defence of using 'xian'. Again, this is simply a symptom of a problem which is - again IMO - that he and others like him have become so separated from Christians and rational arguments in favour of Christianity, that they have slowly developed an undeserved level of scorn regarding theistic belief.

[Goliath]

...an undeserved level of scorn regarding theistic belief.

I do not believe that such a thing exists.

[seebs]

...an undeserved level of scorn regarding theistic belief.

I do not believe that such a thing exists.

I have yet to see it demonstrated that theistic belief inherently deserves any level of scorn whatsoever. I don't deny that there exist belief systems worthy of scorn which are theistic, but... I am not at all convinced that all theistic belief systems are so.

[Goliath]

...an undeserved level of scorn regarding theistic belief.

I do not believe that such a thing exists.

I have yet to see it demonstrated that theistic belief inherently deserves any level of scorn whatsoever. I don't deny that there exist belief systems worthy of scorn which are theistic, but... I am not at all convinced that all theistic belief systems are so.

Nope, that's not anywhere near good enough.

[seebs]

Nope, that's not anywhere near good enough.

Hmm.

Here's my thinking: Scorn is hurtful to people. Given that, I figure scorn must be actively justified. Basically, insofar as I believe in any kind of burden of proof, I figure the rule should be that any action or worldview which is demonstrably hurtful should bear the onus of justification.

Scorn hurts people. Therefore, scorn requires justification. I would assume that any level of scorn which is not sufficiently justified is reasonably called "undeserved scorn", and I think it's easy to come up with levels of scorn which far exceed any available justification.

Let's start with a simple case. A small child (say, five or so) confides in you that he thinks that, just like we build skyscrapers, someone must have made the WHOLE UNIVERSE. He thinks this is probably what people mean when they say "God".

How much scorn does this child deserve? Should we all gather 'round in a circle, pointing and laughing? Should we jeer openly? Because, if not, we've found an example of an undeserved level of scorn regarding theistic belief.

[Larry]

Very interesting discussion! I've only been able to read two pages and there's sooooooo much more. I was just wondering. Are there any Christians posting in this thread? From what I've seen so far I'm reminded of many Christians who argue over whether Adam and Eve were created with a navel or not.

Does it get more heated after page two? :whup:

[livius drusus]

Why yes, Larry, it does get more heated after page two. It gets downright toasty, in fact. :flamewar: As far as I know, seebs is the sole Christian posting in this thread. Other than yourself, of course. ;)

[seebs]

I think HelenM posted briefly.

(Larry! Cool avatar. Man, that was a fun game.)

[Ymir's blood]

(Larry! Cool avatar. Man, that was a fun game.)
I was thinking the same thing! I need to find something to take its place. :\

[Larry]

Why yes, Larry, it does get more heated after page two. It gets downright toasty, in fact. :flamewar: As far as I know, seebs is the sole Christian posting in this thread. Other than yourself, of course. ;)
Can I bring some marshmellows then? ;) So far I've been :popcorn:

[seebs]

(Larry! Cool avatar. Man, that was a fun game.)
I was thinking the same thing! I need to find something to take its place. :\

I've been pretty happy with Temple of Elemental Evil. You get the second official patch, then the fan-made patch version 3.0.4, then the meta-patch produced by one of the developers under the table, then you hand-patch the DLL file so you can do an 8-character party, and then you have an excellent game.

[livius drusus]

I think HelenM posted briefly.

No sir. Click on the number of replies on the forum index and you'll see a breakdown of who posted how much. (As a fun, fun aside, if you click on the number of posts next to the username, you'll get a threadlet of only that user's posts. :wriggle: )

[livius drusus]

Can I bring some marshmellows then? ;) So far I've been :popcorn:

You betcha. I like them really black and carbonized on the outside. :flamed:

[Larry]

Any suggestions on where I might enter or does it matter?

Hey seebs! Are ya feeling a tad bit outnumbered? On another note: Can't remember where I found my avatar. It may seem like a little arrogant of me but I thought it reflected my manner. Spend more time listening than speaking. I guess that's why God (with a capital G ;)) made us with two ears and only one mouth.

[seebs]

Any suggestions on where I might enter or does it matter?

Just charge in, both fists swinging. It's the INTERNET WAY!

Hey seebs! Are ya feeling a tad bit outnumbered?

Honestly, it would never have occurred to me. I am a little prone to the kind of simplistic arrogance where "me and one true statement" outnumber just about anyone. I once argued with Dennis Ritchie about C. (To make it more terrifying, I think I convinced him.)

On another note: Can't remember where I found my avatar. It may seem like a little arrogant of me but I thought it reflected my manner. Spend more time listening than speaking. I guess that's why God (with a capital G ;)) made us with two ears and only one mouth.

Heh. I should play with that sometime; write a proof that God is incompetent, because if God had known how much time we spend talking, and how much we spend listening, it would have been the other way around. :P

[Ymir's blood]

(Larry! Cool avatar. Man, that was a fun game.)
I was thinking the same thing! I need to find something to take its place. :\

I've been pretty happy with Temple of Elemental Evil. You get the second official patch, then the fan-made patch version 3.0.4, then the meta-patch produced by one of the developers under the table, then you hand-patch the DLL file so you can do an 8-character party, and then you have an excellent game.
I almost bought that but an online review made me think the interface was difficult. Did you find it easy to issue orders to the characters?

I'd love to go through that again. Cut my RPG teeth on 'The Village of Hommlet." :wizard: :preach: :knight:

[seebs]

(Larry! Cool avatar. Man, that was a fun game.)
I was thinking the same thing! I need to find something to take its place. :\

I've been pretty happy with Temple of Elemental Evil. You get the second official patch, then the fan-made patch version 3.0.4, then the meta-patch produced by one of the developers under the table, then you hand-patch the DLL file so you can do an 8-character party, and then you have an excellent game.
I almost bought that but an online review made me think the interface was difficult. Did you find it easy to issue orders to the characters?

I'd love to go through that again. Cut my RPG teeth on 'The Village of Hommlet." :wizard: :preach: :knight:

It's marginally tedious, but the real problems went away in the patches. It's a bit weird at first, but radial menus ROCK once you're used to them. I've cleared most of the game twice and have no complaints. In particular, a lot of the time, you can just use the default actions and just click on the monster to attack.

[Larry]

Just charge in, both fists swinging. It's the INTERNET WAY!
Well, perhaps I should take a bit of time to read your posts first. No sense in repeating something already said. I could be brief and simply say I take no offense when non-Christians use derogatory terms for the [G]od I believe in, nor for believing in [H]im (now there's an unusual capitalization of a pronoun). People can call [H]im "sky-daddy" or whatever else their noodle can think of. I think I can decipher who they are speaking of. Afterall -- when Moses asked what he should call [H]im I think [H]e (somewhat) sarcastically said "I am". How's that for a moniker? :chin:

Now I think I'll :popcorn: and see where I might interject.

[seebs]

Honestly, I don't really find it offensive either, except for the part of my brain which is always copy-editing things. :)

And yeah, at some point, it's pretty clear that we know who someone's referring to.

[Larry]

Does the thought ever occur to you (Seebs) that they do it in order to get us (Christians) off-balance? I find that when you're pissed off about something you usually can't think rationally. But other than that, I wonder why they use the terms amongst themselves. Is it like taboo to say god with a capital G. I know, I know. I've read the comments about punctuation/grammar (proper nouns and such jazz) and that's usually why I use the big G instead of the little, but then I do use the big H instead of the little when using the pronoun [H]im. I think I gotta change that. Old habits and all that stuff shining through. Or maybe it's how I see it written on subjects about [G]od and that just seems the way it should be written. I'm not a grammarian, so I wouldn't know. Can one of the esteemed members of this board, who know more about this, inform me as to whether a pronoun is ever capitalized. I just don't recall if it's thing to do.

[Larry]

:popcorn: Page three is proving to be interesting. Question to Goliath. Have I run across you over at the SecWeb? I post there (when I have) as agapeo. Your name rings a bell and I just thought I'd ask. Besides. I didn't say what kind of marshmellows I'd bring to this roast, now did I? :cool:

On to page four. :popcorn:

[Ensign Steve]

Can one of the esteemed members of this board, who know more about this, inform me as to whether a pronoun is ever capitalized. I just don't recall if it's thing to do.

The pronoun "I" is always capitalized. And if the pronoun is the first word in a sentence, it is capitalized. ;) But seriously... The Royal "We" is capitalized, as is the posessive "Her" in "Her Magesty." I supposed that has to do with the idea that if you hold someone in a lot of esteem, like God or a monarch, you would capitalize pronouns that refer to them (Them?). Maybe that's why we capitalize "I" too. heh.

[Larry]

Thanks for the refresher course in grammar Ensign Steve. I honestly forgot the rules. In fact I forget a lot of things. :yup: I do recall that your comments . . .
The Royal "We" is capitalized, as is the posessive "Her" in "Her Magesty."
. . . was given as an explanation as to why Genesis says "Let US . . ." because of the ole King James English.

I'm on page 6 and boy ole boy, i (hehe) need some more popcorn. :popcorn:

[Ensign Steve]

Hmm... do you think the current capitalization of He and Him is left over from that old King James English? Hebrew has no capital letters, now that I think about it.

[Larry]

Well, I never really thought about it's origins. It was something that just occurred to me and I wondered why I capitalized the pronoun when normally I don't whenever referring to someone else, like Bob. I'm thinking I'll stop, but then I think -- What the hell difference does it make? If I use a capital G and/or H I think you all are intelligent to know who i (hehe) am referring to. Well, afterall, it should become obviously clear (I think) I'm a Christian to most who give an ear to what I say. Of course, it's been said it's what you DO and not what you SAY that gives you that distinction. But oh well. Now where did I put my popcorn?

:popcorn:

[Larry]

Wow! Now that was an interesting read. Good points on both sides. As I was reading along I felt like breaking in to reply to something said, but then saw further along it being addressed.

I don't know the dynamics betwixt Justaman and Goliath, but did find myself nodding in agreement when it was pointed out (in not these words) that the point of this thread was of a personal vendetta against his/her attitude. Of course, a quick run through (such as I have done) of all that's been said isn't fair. I may have misunderstood or missed what was said. Nevertheless, what I did find interesting is -- Even though Goliath's seemingly insistent (and perhaps vehement) claim that he/she doesn't give a fuck what xians think about his/her use of the word xians he/she nevertheless found it important enuf to participate in this thread and state it. Well, I found myself asking -- Why should I give a fuck, that he/she doesn't give a fuck? -- and I could find no answer.

Well, I think I've runned out of popcorn and it appears that this thread was about to "die" anyways so I think I'll look into some of the other discussions. Well, unless someone would like to take issue with what I've said.

[livius drusus]

Yeah, I've got an issue. Was that movie butter popcorn or plain with garlic salt? :giggle:

[HelenM]

I think HelenM posted briefly.

I haven't posted in this thread.

Well, now I have...oh never mind... :tiptoe:

Helen

[Larry]

Yeah, I've got an issue. Was that movie butter popcorn or plain with garlic salt? :giggle:
:lol Well, you provided the popcorn, of course. Do I owe you anything for it? I did consume a lot and you might get rich. ;)

Seriously, I did find this thread interesting. Sometimes stupid, but those parts are like commercials -- time to go out to the frigerator and get a snack.
I haven't posted in this thread.

Well, now I have...oh never mind...
Hold your horses, young lady! You don't think you're going to get away that easy without complimenting the managment on the popcorn, do ya?

[Ymir's blood]

Pronouns representing God and Satan are capitalized according to some rules of grammar. Either way could be considered correct.

[HelenM]

Yeah, I've got an issue. Was that movie butter popcorn or plain with garlic salt? :giggle:
:lol Well, you provided the popcorn, of course. Do I owe you anything for it? I did consume a lot and you might get rich. ;)

Seriously, I did find this thread interesting. Sometimes stupid, but those parts are like commercials -- time to go out to the frigerator and get a snack.
I haven't posted in this thread.

Well, now I have...oh never mind...
Hold your horses, young lady! You don't think you're going to get away that easy without complimenting the managment on the popcorn, do ya?

The mention of garlic salt put me off - popcorn with garlic salt??? Ewwwww.... :crazy2:

[Larry]

Yea, I know what you mean about garlic salt. But ya know what. There was a time I couldn't stand rice and beans, but now I love the dish.

Morning Helen! Good to "see" ya here!

What! No comments on the subject of the thread. Tsk, tsk. ;)

[HelenM]

Morning Helen! Good to "see" ya here!

What! No comments on the subject of the thread. Tsk, tsk. ;)

Hi Larry,

It's good to see you too :)

Nope, no comments on the subject of this thread. :yup:

Helen

[livius drusus]

Popcorn is great with garlic salt! The best popcorn I've ever made was a cajun butter combo with lots of garlic powder. Oh ye of little faith... :giggle:

[Larry]

Nope, no comments on the subject of this thread.
Well, I have heard it said that "Silence is golden." or something like that. ;)

[Larry]

The best popcorn I've ever made was a cajun butter combo with lots of garlic powder.
Wow! That sounds yummy.

[Ensign Steve]

Popcorn is great with garlic salt! The best popcorn I've ever made was a cajun butter combo with lots of garlic powder. Oh ye of little faith... :giggle:

I buy special pre-made Parmesan & Garlic popcorn topping. YUM!

[Larry]

I buy special pre-made Parmesan & Garlic popcorn topping.
Would you get offended if I decapitalized the words Parmesan & Garlic if I didn't like either? ;)

[Ensign Steve]

um... no, not especially

[Larry]

I didn't think so, but don't ya think it would be silly if you did?

[lisarea]

I buy special pre-made Parmesan & Garlic popcorn topping.
Would you get offended if I decapitalized the words Parmesan & Garlic if I didn't like either? ;)

If you don't like parmesan and garlic, then your views have just about as much currency as those of the homeless guy pounding on my car window to inform me that Jimmy Cagney was a gay homosexual working for the communists to destroy America by training housepets as spies.

What you do or do not capitalize is the very least of your problems.

So there.

[Larry]

What you do or do not capitalize is the very least of your problems.
Whether we capitalize or not is the least of our (mankind's) problems.

So there! Back at ya.

[lisarea]

What you do or do not capitalize is the very least of your problems.
Whether we capitalize or not is the least of our (mankind's) problems.

Well, yeah, but Jimmy Cagney is dead, which resolves mankind's most pressing problem.

What's left? Parmesan and garlic-hating freaks is what.


So there! Back at ya.

I win.

[HelenM]

Popcorn is great with garlic salt! The best popcorn I've ever made was a cajun butter combo with lots of garlic powder. Oh ye of little faith... :giggle:

I like garlic and I like popcorn but you're right - I don't have enough faith to believe they go together! :shrug:

Helen

[Larry]

Well, yeah, but Jimmy Cagney is dead, which resolves mankind's most pressing problem.
I'd venture to say that the vast majority of the world's population don't even know who Cagney is so your point is? I'm sure there's a hidden message somewhere in that ditti, but you're have to excuse my denseness. What else can you expect from a Christian? ;)
I win.
Oh! Well, I didn't know we were in a pissing contest or I would have given it more effort. :D