Magical Sky Pixie, Etc. -- Y'all Know You're Being Deeply Insulting, Right?

[Jodi]

MR. VISIBLE –

As it is, I’m fighting for my rights to exist as a full citizen of the country that I was born in, and my only impediment is a smugly self-assured cult that believes it can base modern morality on a loose interpretation of an antiquated set of mistranslated, heavily edited rules for pre-medieval existence.

Oh, I seriously doubt that’s your only impediment. Do you want to curse this world, or change it? Do you think you can change it while pissing off even the most liberal of your opponents, with your condescension and your disrespectful contempt of things that are important to them? You’d send us all to hell (metaphorically) for the acts of the most extreme of us. Really – do you think that’s wise? Because there are a lot of us – including me – who will fuck right off when invited to, and guess who that leaves in charge. Good luck getting the right to marry your boyfriend then.

And this isn’t vitriol. Not by a long shot. This is me trying to explain my position, and why “mythical sky pixie” amuses the heck out of me. Your reaction to it being the most amusing part. Read all the anger you want into my post; it was composed using civil terms, and was an honest assessment of my opinion of religion.

But, you see, I didn’t ask you, or anyone, why you find the term amusing. I don’t really care, though I of course see that you do – people wouldn’t throw it out so merrily if they didn’t think it was worth a titter or two. Nor did I ask for “an honest assessment of your opinion of religion” – that’s my point: You couldn’t resist giving us one anyway. The issue is: “Do you realize some people are offended by terms like this? If you do, are you willing to knock it off?” That’s it. That’s the whole thing. No one solicited anyone’s opinion on religion generally. No one asked you “why do you think religion is crap?” So why did you feel the need to post that, especially here? I find it very telling, and frankly anyone who could read your last post and then believe you when you say you’re not angry is far more of a believer than I am. The truly equable are never that bitter.

I find it truly funny that even the suggestion that your deity doesn’t exist, the fact that some people find your gesticulations and pleas to your infallible yet indecipherable god truly ludicrous, should be interpreted as anger.

If find it truly funny that you could imagine that anyone – theist or not – would read your last post and find only “suggestions that your deity doesn’t exist.” I mean, that must be some sort of land-speed record for revisionism – and revisionism is of course difficult to do when your words are right up there for all to read.

Again, the question is not whether you find the beliefs of deists to be “ludicrious.” I know many nonbelievers do. The question is whether you realize you are offending people when you expres that belief by being derisive and disrespectful about their beliefs. And, if you do see that, whether you care.

I think it’s a safe bet at this point to say that you don’t. And that’s your choice. As I have said, I just don’t want people to say they didnt know that was the choice they were making.

[Equipoise]

You sir, MrVisible are a fine thinker and writer! Hats off!

[Jodi]

STEELERPHAN –

I promise not to call your God the magical sky pixie as long as you don’t proselytize to me.

You’ve got a deal.

CLAIROBSCUR –

I’m not going to argue religion with you, because this thread isn’t actually about religion. I would note in passing, however, that not all Christians believe in eternal damnation or Biblical literalism. Quite a large number of us do not. It seems to me that people who wish to wholesale condemn religion ought to at least know what it is they’re condemning. Islam is not Osama bin Laden. And Christianity is not Jerry Falwell.

But if you don’t see any insult in “magical sky pixie,” even hypothetically, but rather only “the plain truth” – well, then we know where you’re at on the question presented. If you can’t even see the objection, then it would be unreasonable to expect you to concede its validity.

[RexDart]

I’ll tell you why I have no respect for the belief in the supernatural, be it god or anything else. Suppose I spend years of my life studying a Rubic’s Cube. After all those years, I still can’t figure out how to “solve” the cube, how to get all the colours aligned in 3x3 uniform on each of the 6 sides of the cube. Then someone comes along and tells me they know the cube can be solved, but they neither know how to do it themselves nor can give me a good explanation for how it can be done. They assert “it can be done”, but cannot tell me why they think so.

I have spent years of my life thinking about the issue of whether there could be a god, an issue dismissed offhand by most contemporary philosophers (excepting in the sense as Libertarian mentions in GD, which could easily be pantheistic and material.) I consider myself rather intelligent, but am always open to hearing from someone with more insight in a particular area. I would have supposed that after all those years, years in which I really frickin’ wanted to believe in a god, somebody could have come up to me and solved the Rubic’s Cube.

Why could not somebody have given an explanation? It always gets to the point at which these otherwise intelligent people have to resort to throwing up their hands and just saying “well, I have faith that it is so.” Faith seems so intellectually weak. You might believe me if I told you there was a Maid-Rite restaurant in Brookfield, Missouri, even if you hadn’t been there. Perhaps it would be more of an “I suppose it could be true” than an “I believe it’s true.” I’d like to think, however, that if your lifestyle was going to be based on whether or not that was the case that you’d at least investigate it and not just take it “on faith.” The claims of the existence of a god either aren’t able to be investigated, or haven’t been investigated properly in the entire history of thought.

I have tried, and tried, and tried, and tried, and tried, and tried to understand how “faith” can be a valid method of belief, and I have never gotten a satisfactory answer. For this reason, I must conclude that “faith” is an irrational process of belief, and as such I consider it nonsense. I sincerely wanted to be convinced by it, but couldn’t be. If this were merely a fault in my own person, then surely somebody somewhere could explain it in clear simple language, but I’ve yet to hear it. A recent series of deity-related GD threads has failed to bring an answer to light, so I guess nobody here can tell me either. Oh well.

[Miller]

Jodi, I’m not really reading how you think people who don’t believe in a religion should act. Should they just not have an opinion about religion at all, or should they only keep their opinions to themselves? I, for one, found MrVisible’s post to be entirely respectful towards believers, while being honest about his feelings towards belief. Far from being unsolicited, it is in fact a direct response to your OP. You think the term is disrespectful, MrVisible gave an eloquent defence of it. I’m sorry that you are offended by the degree to which he disagrees with you, but I don’t think it is fair to blame him because you are unable to seperate yourself from your beliefs.

[clairobscur]

Oh, I can perceive how “magical sky pixie” can be constructed as offensive. but I never used terms like these with the intent of upsetting people, but merely to make them understand exactly what I mean. Because quite often believers don’t fully realize that, yes, seriously, really we don’t, absolutely don’t, believe there such a thing as a god.
Moreover, i don’t think having your god compared to santa claus or whatever is seriously offensive, unless you’re really thinskinned, contrarily to saying for instance that you’re living in delusion…which is really what I think though I usually abstain from saying so… So, I don’t intend to avoid these terms, whether or not you find them offensive. I’m not going to censor any concept or analogy which remotely offend somebody somewhere. Especially not since this kind of analogy is necessary to convey properly what I mean. I think there’s is a point in stating how this kind of beliefs can be perceived from the outside, like in “weird costumed rituals in the name of an invisible being…etc…”, since I doubt a lot of believers would realize it if it was written in a less blunt (but accurate) way.

Finally, you can be unwilling to debate about religion per se in this thread, but there’s a point in saying why we have a dent against religion. It’s not a belief we can ignore. It would be extremely difficult to display respect for something that not only you can’t take seriously but also which has adverse effects on your own life. Perhaps on an individual basis you’re tolerant and all, but you belong to a larger group which has largely proven in the past how dangerous it can be, and is still thriving to mess with everybody else life in many ways…and not even on any rational basis, but on the name of a delusion. Why do you expect me to pretend I respect this belief, which is, from my point of view, at the same time nonsentical and dangerous?

[MrVisible]

Jodi,

You’re asking me to express respect for something I consider to be not only ludicrous, but actively harmful. You’re asking for considerations not extended to anyone else on this board.

If you can’t prove your beliefs with facts, then they’re just beliefs. I have no more need to respect your god than I have to respect those of the people who post to espouse theories about the moon landing being faked, or to advocate the true existence of the Easter Bunny. Why would such unproven claims merit my respect? How many people would have to believe in the Easter Bunny before it behooved me to avoid any terms that might offend Easter Bunny believers?

This whole thread was started in an attempt to persuade posters to avoid terms which might offend you and people who share your beliefs. You’ll note that I haven’t used the terms you stated. Instead, I have voiced my amusement at a belief so fragile that even a light-hearted jab can be considered offensive. Are you really so weak in your faith that you can’t let a childish term for your deity go by unchallenged? Do you really think your god cares what unbelievers call him? Or is it just your delicate sensibilities that can’t take a humorous nickname for your all-powerful deity?

You’re right; risking offense to a large group of people probably isn’t expedient when I’m fighting for a cause. But every so often, honesty and openness get the better of me, and I sacrifice political expedience on their behalf. As to whether the religiously inclined are the only impediment to gay marriage, please name a secular organization that has lobbied against gay marriage.

If find it truly funny that you could imagine that anyone – theist or not – would read your last post and find only “suggestions that your deity doesn’t exist.”

As much as I appreciate the thought that I may have offered proof that your god doesn’t exist, I don’t think my last post did so. So all I have is suggestions, and an apprehension of how ridiculous religion looks from the outside. I thought that might be helpful in getting you to understand the point of view which might consider the term “magical sky pixie” to be a useful means of ridiculing the oppressive nature of these overbearingly theocratic times.

I know you didn’t ask for an essay on an outsider’s perspective of your religion. But you posted asking that people have more respect for your baseless beliefs than we have for any other baseless beliefs. I don’t give out my respect on demand. I respect people and institutions that earn my respect, through good deeds, morality, intelligence, trustworthiness, coherence, rationality… any of dozens of qualities which I find worthwhile. In my experience, religion has a long way to go.

To clairobscur, NightRabbit, Wearia, Steelerphan, Equipoise, Miller… thank you for your generous comments on my posts. I’m really flattered that you liked them. I guess I’ve been waiting to say this a while. And Miller, I prefer the term ‘heathen’.

[reprise]

I pretty much avoid using the word “God” (capitalised or not), for many reasons other than the fact that I don’t believe in a supreme being. Perhaps we do need an acronym (DOYC?) which non-believers can use when discussing religion without offending those who believe. Yet just as I’m sure that if I started to use “Krishna” or “Allah” to refer to the “Architect of the Universe” (and all of these are terms used by believers of one faith or another) people would be offended by my referring to the supreme being by a (in their opinion) ‘wrong’ name, I’m equally sure that some believers would be offended by my referring to that being by a generic phrase such as “Deity of Your Choice”.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I’d be interested in hearing suggestions from other people of faith about terms us non-believers can use when referring to “the Force” (and I use that one quite often myself) without running the risk of giving unintended offence.

We’ve had this discussion before about terms other groups find offensive, and it would be incredibly hypocritical for us as a community to dismiss out of hand complaints about the language used here when discussing religion when we consider very serious the language used when discussing sexuality and ethnicity.

We expect people to use non-offensive language on the SDMB when discussing homosexuality, even if they believe passionately that homosexuality is an abomination. We expect people to use non-offensive language on the SDMB when discussing issues related to ethnicity, even if they believe passionately that some ethnicities are inherently superior to others.

Is it that unreasonable to expect people to use non-offensive language on the SDMB when discussing religion, even if they think religion is the longest running scam around?

(yeah, I know, who’d have thunk that I’d be writing this post - kind of surreal, isn’t it?)

[Siege]

Let me pu the facts up front. I am a Christian. I have also considering voicing strong objections to an anti-atheist sign on a co-workers desk in our (fortunately little-used) reception area. Finally, I’ve been working on an essay for my church’s newsletter urging us not to be disrespectful of atheists, and even trying to get people to imagine how it would feel to find one’s beliefs under attack. Then I opened this thread.

I’ve read a great many threads in GD on religion and participated in ones where I thought I had something productive to say. In this thread, people have repeatedly said that I am less than intelligent, weak-minded, inferior in reason and logic, or less than mentally healthy as long as I have faith. How can this not be insulting?! I respect your right not to believe there is no God, and I am prepared to defend it. I’ve even come to see how you came by them, and it’s hard for me to argue. I also have a couple of very dear friends who went from Fundamentalism to Atheism to Wicca (capitalization for the sake of consistency only). However, right now, I am offended by your descriptions of me.

How can I respect someone who calls me an idiot? I have reached my beliefs by use of life experience, logic, and learning. As I have said to some Christians, insulting me is not going to make me change my mind; if anything, it will push me away from the person insulting me because I don’t want to become like them. I know this is not my usual style of post, but I am angry about the implications of jinwicked, Mr. Visible, happy heathen ( who I have thought very highly of), etc.

Tell you what, folks, if you don’t call me stupid because I have faith, I won’t call you selfish because you don’t.

With regrets,
CJ

[Steve_Wright]

You know, the whole “magical sky pixie” thing can backfire…

When I see a comment along those lines, my reaction is not “AAuugh! Blasphemy!”, and certainly not “Oh no! My entire outmoded belief system is crumbling before the onslaught of this person’s barbed wit!”

It’s much more likely to be “Oh. Another twit who thinks abuse is a substitute for argument.” Or “This person clearly has no understanding of religious belief, therefore anything they have to say on the subject can safely be disregarded.”

The worrying, and depressing, thing, is that several atheists’ comments in this thread seem to be proving me right. Post after post, all saying effectively the same thing - that atheists (some atheists) don’t, can’t and won’t understand believers.

Look, lack of understanding is a bad thing. At the very least, if you atheists undestand how we believers think, you stand a better chance of talking us out of it, right?

Try it on another issue… MrVisible has spoken with much eloquence and bitterness about how he’s not allowed to marry his boyfriend. Now, as a heterosexual male, I could say, “Well, I just don’t understand how a man can fancy another man anyway,” and dismiss the whole matter from my mind.

But the fact is that I can understand MrVisible’s situation; I know what love is, and what sexual attraction is, and I can use my imagination and my empathy (such as they are) to put myself in his shoes. And, for what it’s worth (not much - random English blokes like me have no influence on US domestic policy), I fully support his right to marry - and you don’t have to look very far to find other Christians who think the same way.

However, my efforts to understand MrVisible don’t make me gay. Similarly, my atheist friends, understanding my views won’t necessarily make believers out of you. What it will do is make relations between us easier and more congenial - less yelling, more talking.

Mutual understanding, people. Not agreement, just understanding. Surely we can achieve that much?

[ultress]

For what it’s worth, I consider myself a striving Christian. Striving because I’m far from where I would like to be, but it’s a daily thing. This thread isn’t about religion. It’s about statements that cause hurt, it shouldn’t matter that it happens to be about religion. At times in the past I have also expressed feelings on terms being used, like ‘what makes the baby Jesus cry’ or ‘Christ on a Pogo Stick’ only to be told by other “believers” that there’s nothing wrong with making a joke out of God/Jesus/belief. Yea, my God has a sense of humor. But I’ve had some thing said about me that I don’t find particularly funny that others have, and maybe God feels the same, I don’t know but if it bothers me, then I have to wonder if it wouldn’t bother him.
Jodi, while I have a deep respect for you, sometimes bringing things out in the open only makes it worse. The very people that you are asking for some consideration from will be the very ones that will make doubly sure now that they come up with some new and improved ways to slander and upset that which you believe in. Others will try to do better. Sometimes, it’s best to just let things die out on their own. I don’t think I’ve seen the Baby Jesus Cry thing but once in a while now.
Maybe I don’t keep up with the boards as well as I should, but I don’t think yet that I’ve seen anywhere on here where a Christian has tried to ram their beliefs down the throats of other Dopers. If asked, I will gladly tell you what I believe, but I won’t force anything on anyone, that only makes people have a vile taste in their mouth and it’s not the way that Christianity works.
I do find it ironic, but it’s a proven fact, that when something bad happens, it’s God/Jesus/Christians/Believers that most people look to.

[Liberal]

There’s so much wisdom and good sense in this thread that presuming to add to it would be folly. I’d just like to answer my friend Phil’s question:

I accept that Polycarp and cmkeller and Jodi and whoever believe what they believe and that their beliefs are honestly come by, but I also think that what they believe is as much bunkum as Kirlian photography. Can that idea be expressed without some level of derision?

Yeah, I think it can. And as others have pointed out, it’s sometimes even necessary because otherwise, you end up leaving a much different impression than the one you intended.

First, I can think of two circumstances where derision is assumed a priori, and they are no different than ordinary circumstances where you’re talking about anything else: if you use objects of a person’s faith (think of faith as “love”) as a means to curse, then you can understand how that might cause hurt; likewise, if you use a person’s faith as an intentional means to to hurt, rest assured that it will.

So, if you say “God doesn’t exist” in the context of expressing your opinion, I don’t know of anyone who would be hurt by that. But if you say “God doesn’t exist” as a response to a passionate testimony by someone who has explained why they love God, you’re at least tactless.

But anytime, it’s just a matter of context and common sense. Some examples:

You’re debating a Creationist. Which of these do you think would go over better and make your point with more effect to people of faith?:

A. God has nothing to do with science.

B. Scientists who believe in God find no conflict between their work and their faith.

You’re in a heated discussion about abortion.

A. Even given that fetuses are people, your god has killed a lot more people than abortion has.

B. From what little I know of Jesus, I don’t think He would shoot an abortion doctor.

You encounter a person witnessing on the boards.

A. I don’t understand how you can be so naive and gullible, therefore…

B. I can understand a man’s passion for what he holds dear, but…

Does that help at all?

[robertliguori]

Look, Mr. Visible and his Evil Atheist Disciples™ and Jodi and her Raving Fundamentelist Hordes(also tm) need to stop and take a deep breath.
Setting aside whether or not the Bible should be revered or mocked, is it factually accurate? I’m afraid not. The Bible contradicts basic, observable knowledge (Genesis, with the creation of the world, stopping the sun in the sky, etc.) God contradicts himself inumerable times. Holy or nonsense, the Bible is not factually correct.
And a quick note to the Evil Atheist Disciples: just because something is a primitive outmoded superstiscion does not make it wrong. Head over to Internet Infidels and come back with a little evidence. It’s much less condescending than, “You are a Christian, Christianity is incorrect, therefore you are a stupid, emotionally dependant child.”

[clairobscur]

You’re debating a Creationist. Which of these do you think would go over better and make your point with more effect to people of faith?:

Actually, I don’t think there’s anyway I could convince a full-fletched litteralist. And to say the truth, that is not my goal. There are moderate christians who can do this job more convincigly that I ever could (at least, they believe in god to, hence have some common ground with the litteralists). I’m actually more interested in convincing people who are closer to my side of the fence. Like people who seriously doubt of god’s existence, or are agnostic who state that “nobody can know whether god exist or not”, or are atheist but still too accustomed to the revered status of religion in our society and who think that for some reason religion deserve a special respect (more than for instance a political opinion and also more than another kind of irrational belief).
So, my message would be actually more along the line “yes…indeed, these teaching are ludicrous/ there is zero reason to assume god exists/religion doesn’t deserve more respect than any other opinion…if you’re already considering this, you must know you’re not alone, if you’re not convinced please reconsider your reasons”.
When I begin arguing about religion on the SD, certainly it’s usually because some post made by a religious person picked on my nerves and I feel the need to respond. But actually I don’t try to do my best to convince this particular person, since I know I’m very unlikely to suceed. I’m rather indirectly targeting third parties already leaning toward my position.

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by robertliguori *
**Look, Mr. Visible and his Evil Atheist Disciples™ and Jodi and her Raving Fundamentelist Hordes(also tm) need to stop and take a deep breath.
Setting aside whether or not the Bible should be revered or mocked, is it factually accurate? I’m afraid not. The Bible contradicts basic, observable knowledge (Genesis, with the creation of the world, stopping the sun in the sky, etc.) God contradicts himself inumerable times. Holy or nonsense, the Bible is not factually correct.
And a quick note to the Evil Atheist Disciples: just because something is a primitive outmoded superstiscion does not make it wrong. Head over to Internet Infidels and come back with a little evidence. It’s much less condescending than, “You are a Christian, Christianity is incorrect, therefore you are a stupid, emotionally dependant child.” **

That’s too simple an argument. You cannot dismiss an event by simply claiming it contradicts basic, observable knowledge.

What you can do, of course, is point out that claims demand proof, and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. The claim that the sun stopped in the sky surely qualifies as extraordinary, and if the only evidence is the hearsay accounts that appear in the Bible, that’s certainly not consistent with the standard of extraordinary proof.

I could easily postulate an advanced civilization used giant hologram projectors to “stop the sun in the sky”. If those aliens were to show up again, and demostrate their hologram projector, and produce documentary film from their first trip, showing how they projected an image of the stopped sun for the Israelites… I hope you’d agree that such evidence would be sufficient to conclude that the event happened.

But – what if these aliens existed, and what if they abducted you one night, showed you their holographic capabilites, their documentary films… and then returned you to your home?

You’d be in the position of knowing, reasonably surely, that the aliens exist, and that the “sun stopped in the sky” episode actually happened. But you’d have no proof sufficient to convince others. If you told your story, others would be quite justified in disbelieving you, for it, too, would demand extraordinary proof - proof which you lack.

But would they be justified in deriding you as weak-minded? After all… it did happen.

• Rick

[clairobscur]

Post after post, all saying effectively the same thing - that atheists (some atheists) don’t, can’t and won’t understand believers.

What you forget is that many atheist actually are former believers hence have an excellent understanding of what religion is like from the inside. On the other hand, few believers actually get what it means to look at religious beliefs and practices without theist glasses. That’s why I hammer down time and again the similarity between believing in god and believing in fairies from an outsider point of view.

Actually, a lot of non-believers still look at religion with theist glasses, because they’re accustomed (through their education, because these beliefs are mainstream, etc…) to consider these beliefs as somewhat more acceptable, or more logical or deserving more respect than other irrational beliefs. I should know better, since I went also through with step where I still beleived that religion was somewhat respectable.
At this point, the fact that there’s no difference between various brands of weird and unsupported beliefs was still somewhat abstract and intellectual to me. I could state that believing that the patterns of stones in places situated in a “magnetic center”, under the direction of a guru who’s actually the reincarnation of Nefertiti would allow to understand the message send to us by our creator gods living on some remote planet (Im’ refering to an actual belief, here…I didn’t make it up) was exactly similar to believing that the guy with the funny costume is actually giving you the flesh of a dead god which look like bread. But nevertheless, I still “felt” there was a difference. Without any objective reason apart from being more accustomed to christianism, the former belief sounded more silly than the later.
With time, I went past this step (lost the last elements of a long term social brainwashing?) and now, both beliefs seem equally silly to me, the main difference being that the latter, being more widespread and mainstream, is more worrying. So, yes, I now insist on making abundantly clear that from my point of view, christian people are “doing strange costumed rituals about an invisible being made up by a nomadic tribe whose members didn’t know better with the expectation of receiving magical gifts (eternal life included)”. Why should I abstain from expressing what I think? Especially when it’s the only way to make people understand where I stand…I’ve a much better understanding of religion from the inside than that, but there’s no reason i should argue from the point of view of an insider when I’m an outsider.

And by the way, where are all these posts about not using terms which could be deemed offensive when the belief criticized is some less important cult or new age thing? Where is the “thou shall not ridicule thy neighbor belief” crowd, when mormons or astrologers are attacked?

[bifar]

Sorry, but I’m with Jodi on this one. I’m not sure of the number of Christians on the board, but I imagine they’re a minority and I think, in this case, a minority’s view should be taken into account.(even if it’s just me and Jodi ;-)).

[Steve_Wright]

*Originally posted by clairobscur *
**
What you forget is that many atheist actually are former believers hence have an excellent understanding of what religion is like from the inside. **

I don’t think I’m forgetting any such thing. I would point out, however, that being brought up to participate in the rites of a particular religion does not equate to an actual belief in that religion. Some atheists are certainly ex-believers; others are simply ex-churchgoers.

**So, yes, I now insist on making abundantly clear that from my point of view, christian people are “doing strange costumed rituals about an invisible being made up by a nomadic tribe whose members didn’t know better with the expectation of receiving magical gifts (eternal life included)”. Why should I abstain from expressing what I think? **

Well, you might want to consider that you’re not even coming close to an accurate description of my belief structure (and I make no claims to being more than an averagely enlightened Christian). If you’re going to deride me, please deride me for what I actually do believe, not what you think I ought to.

Especially when it’s the only way to make people understand where I stand…

There’s always informed, rational, polite debate… which, as I understand it, is the OP’s point.

I’ve a much better understanding of religion from the inside than that, but there’s no reason i should argue from the point of view of an insider when I’m an outsider.

If you have a better understanding, please feel free to demonstrate it. I’m not going to fall into the error of assuming that, since you understand, you must also agree.

**And by the way, where are all these posts about not using terms which could be deemed offensive when the belief criticized is some less important cult or new age thing? Where is the “thou shall not ridicule thy neighbor belief” crowd, when mormons or astrologers are attacked? **

I have no particular interest in being rude to anyone. With members of other faiths, I’ll happily engage in well-mannered debate. As for things like astrology… the salient point, it seems to me, is that astrologers offer objectively testable results, and, when objectively tested, they fail. If I claimed that the power of prayer enabled me to predict the future (nb. I don’t), you would be well within your debating rights to ask me to make a prediction, and then check if it came true. Astrology has been tested on this basis, and found to be false. Even so, that’s no reason to be rude to astrologers.

[Polycarp]

There are idiots among us.

There are indeed Christians (and others) who behave in the manner posited by some of the non-believers present here.

There are people whose certitude of the rightness of their beliefs is such that they will attempt to force others by law or social convention into their POV. Some of the latter are atheists. (I am not claiming that “atheism is a belief” – I’m stating that certain atheists are acting exactly like fundamentalists in attempting to force their view as regards the existence or absence of God on others.

Jodi’s initial point was one requesting common courtesy in debate. There are those who said that their intent in using or reading “magical sky pixie” was not to belittle others, but rather to heap ridicule on a particular perspective.

I confess to being amused by it, because it is such an apposite satire of a particular view of God that is validly held by some.

But there are other people for which it is not valid, and who hold a belief in God on rational grounds – and for whom the whole “it’s just superstition and manipulation by church leaders corrupted by power” stance is direct insult to their personal views.

I am offended by the guy who, on the basis of some casual reading, decides to tell me what is erroneous about my chosen faith (usually getting his historical facts wrong, as in the idjit who dated Mohammed before Jesus a month or so ago).

I don’t expect you to adopt my belief system – unless my “witness” (meaning not my preaching to you, but my overall character and rational stance as expressed in my posts) should convince you that I might just have a handle on something you hadn’t yet seen.

I do expect you to show the same respect for my views that I would for yours – I arrived at them rationally, however they may disagree for yours. That includes my politics, my ethical system, my views on various forms of fiction, and in particular the religious beliefs that motivate me.

Two points in particular: clairobscur, I believe that I have stated overtly, over the last three years, in several threads, that it is my religious convictions that underscore my views that you and everyone else are deserving of respect and freedom, and that IMO nobody is “sent to Hell” but opts in as full knowledge as possible for them to turn away from God’s love – that you are not going to be condemned for my piss-poor witness or someone else’s unconvincing presentation of theology, but, if at all, for the choices you may make in full knowledge of the truth, and that IMO God loves you, unconditionally, and will not give up on trying to give you a full and happy life that is endless (and that is not a criticism of what you presently may enjoy) until and unless you make it impossible for Him to do so.

Now, in what way is that a trespass on your personal dignity?

Mr. Visible, I have gotten more than a little flak from conservative Christians and assorted nitwits for defending the teaching of my church that all human beings, including specifically gay people, deserve respect, dignity, and a full healthy life, including marriage to their chosen loved one when and if they choose it. As a happily married man, arguing this case has been little but heartache for me. Are you telling me that I need to give up the superstition that God demands of me that I treat you with dignity and respect and try to advocate for what is simple fairness to you and yours as against the superstition of others that God condemns you for being gay? Pick carefully; I may just take you up on it!

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

First, I find Jinwicked’s viewpoint interesting – that she sees all religious people as being at a lesser emotional stage than she’s at (my apologies if I’m misrepresenting your views, JW). For myself, I find atheist stances like hers to be at a lesser spiritual stage.

There’s a saying that nobody’s worse than a reformed drunk, and I think that applies to religion as well. People who have recently left religion have a lot of bile toward it. Generally, though, once someone has been away from religion for awhile, they develop a lot more tolerance toward it.

When I was 16, I loved mocking religious people. It was one of my hobbies, such that I memorized the Lord’s prayer backwards, made up lyrics to hymns (“Jesus hates me, this I know/For the preacher tells me so/God loves him so he can tell/That I’m gonna go to hell” etc.)

Now, I’m a lot happier around religious people. I’ve gotten over my rage toward it. Though I occasionally tell anti-religious jokes, I do it rarely, and I generally regret doing so, and feel like I’m regressing to my teenage years.

Would I ever use the Magical Sky Pixie phrase? I might, but only if someone was proselytizing toward me: I’d know I was being offensive, and I’d use it deliberately to offend them so that they’d stop talking to me. I’d never use it otherwise: I’m not os arrogant in my beliefs that I think I know better than other people on this subject, and while I’m an atheist, I’m also aware that I might be Wrong In A Big Way.

One final point: I wonder how many non-Christians are objecting toward the phrase. I wonder because I’ve noticed that many Christians really like being the idea of being persecuted – my guess is that on some level it makes them feel like Jesus. And I’ve noticed that these Christians will go out of their way to feel persecuted or offended over relatively minor things that members of other religions don’t care about. So I ask the Jews, Moslems, and Pagans of the SDMB: how do y’all feel about people using the Magical Sky Pixie phrase?

Daniel