bifar, we did an informal study on this MB and Christians definitely outnumbered atheists, IIRC. I think the reason so many Christians think they are a minority on this board is that meeting so many outspoken atheists is so rare that they feel overwhelmed (well, either that or they are of a sect which does not think X Y and Z believers in Jesus Christ are Christian).
Anyway, re the MSP thing, I think it’s often tacky (completely unlike my own beloved IPU, of course), but we have a lot of people on this board that feel passionately about a whole bunch of subjects. I don’t see the MSP as being much different than saying (or implying) Libertarians are nutty and their beliefs are ridiculous. Or maybe a better anaolgy would be, say, calling Al Gore a silly name when talking to Stoid.
If you’re talking to a well-spoken, reasonable theist, I feel the MSP is rather gauche, just as hyperbole about political parties is gauche during an intellectual, well reasoned debate about social systems. I’ve never used the MSP, and probably won’t, and if you’re deeply offended by your God being called a silly name you have every right to ask people not to do it; though is must say, if you think people implying your beliefs are ridiculous or silly deeply offends you, GD must definitely raise your blood pressure.
As much as I enjoy discussing religion with theists, I can attest to the fact that using terms like MSP and IPU do not help convince your opponent that he is wrong.
While I personally do not find them offensive, (almost certainly because I am an atheist) and have been known to use the terms in a sarcastic and admittedly nonproductive fashion, I can easily understand that those to whom religion is important would find them to be terms filled with intentional derision.
Thus, I am faced with two possible choices:
Use the terms anyway. (Which is often a valid choice, when your own opinions are being ridiculed, in order that tables may be turned and comments thrust back upon comment makers.)
Find a nonoffensive term (my thanks to reprise for DOYC* which I will be using in this capacity). Which is the preferred method of commentary when you find yourself in a discussion with a polite, even toned and courteous audience.
In short, when having a calm, polite discussion, I will be more than happy to use DOYC. Should the discussion devolve into a less than pleasant ordeal, thru the use of derogatory rhetoric, then I will feel more than justified to avail myself to other, more offensive terms.
[sub]DOYC - Deity Of Your Choice, for those out there that don’t read all the posts.[/sub]
There’s a world of difference between insulting a person and disrespecting a belief. In Great Debates, the most rigorous forum on the boards, the policy is that while attacks on arguments are valid, attacks on the debaters involved are verboten. Which makes perfect sense to me; in fact, I’ve been trying to make sure I keep that guideline in mind at all times, on and off the boards.
I don’t think that a belief exists that should go unquestioned. I don’t agree that there are certain beliefs that, because of their popularity or because of the sensitivity of the believers, should not be argued against. And ridicule is often, as has been proven time and again on these boards, an effective means of opposing ridiculous, unfounded beliefs. Why should I forgo using such a tool in the course of discussions on religion?
There seems to be a consensus amongst the faithful that anyone who disagrees with them simply doesn’t understand. Entertain for a moment the possibility that I’m not arguing out of a lack of understanding. That I have considered your position carefully, that I have researched and participated in numerous forms of religious belief, and that, in my understanding, it’s complete and utter bunk. Your implication that I don’t understand is just as offensive as my position that you have been sadly misled by a ridiculous institution. I understand. I just think you’re wrong.
Keep in mind, I have nothing against believers. I think it’s an integral part of human nature to search for meaning in the confusion of existence, and I can see how exposure to a pervasive faith can easily take advantage of that. I don’t have any more contempt for you than I have for people who’ve gotten taken in by other sophisticated con games. I don’t even think you’re particularly gullible; I just think the con has gotten so sophisticated that it’s almost impossible to escape. I count myself lucky to have gotten enough mixed religious messages as a kid to have been forced to question the nature of religion itself.
It’s a beautiful scheme, after all. Tell people they’re sinners, no matter what they do, unless they believe, and worship, and contribute to the institution. Promise rewards in the afterlife, for sacrifices made for the church today. Convince followers that following this path, and this path only, not only guarantees them an improvable salvation, but makes them morally superior to any nonbelievers. Stir in some guilt and some redemption, assure your congregation that your interpretation of the antique texts is the only possible one, and you’re done! Make sure to either indoctrinate new members from birth, or to catch them at a particularly vulnerable point in their lives, though. Wouldn’t want anyone questioning the faith.
There’s no shame in falling for a well-designed con. The conman who doesn’t respect his mark is the one that ends up in jail most often. I just don’t see why I should not be allowed to use whatever arguments I like to argue against it. Tell me why I should be more respectful of your decision to follow your church than I am, say, of Jim Jones’ cult to follow his? You both have an equal amount of proof that what you’re following is real.
I’m fascinated by this statement from cjhoworth, which encapsulates the reason that I argue against religion in cases like this, instead of letting things slide:
I’ve called your faith stupid; this does not mean I hold the same opinion of you. However, I’d very much like to hear why you think non-belief is selfish. Is it just non-belief in your particular religion that qualifies me as selfish? If I believed in some other deity, would I be less selfish? How about I create a new religion, and worship, say, The Primary Master Hard Drive Controller, and spread His benevolent gospel to the masses? Would I still be being selfish then?
Polycarp, I don’t want you to respect my beliefs. I don’t want anyone to; my beliefs are based on what I’ve observed so far in my life, and as such they should be entirely malleable. Because my current conclusions have come as a result of observation, I do not have to invest any faith in them; in fact if my conclusions are questioned, or disproven, I will do my best to integrate the new knowledge into my mindset, and learn as much as I can from the experience. My faith can’t be threatened by facts or by arguments; I do my best to not hold any faith that isn’t open to revision based on the acquisition of new evidence.
I want my beliefs questioned, proven false, challenged, overturned. I respect anyone who will present me with evidence that I need to rethink my philosophy; it’s happened many times, and I hope it keeps happening, frequently, my whole life long.
So, I am showing your beliefs the same respect I would have you show mine.
And as to your last paragraph… you would give up your belief in what is right because I’d dare to disrespect your religion? Is your quest to help others dependent on my not calling your god names? Or, more disturbingly, are you implying that without your belief in God, you would have no reason to do right by your fellow human beings?
I do understand why some of the posters have a problem with the Christian social structure - Mr. Visible in particular raises a good point. Where I’m getting lost is that it is not necessary to agree with a specific belief in order to accord respect and courtesy to individuals. As Polycarp’s post shows, they may in fact be allies rather than enemies.
Both Jodi and Libertarian have recently pointed out phrases that are offensive. I respect both of them, along with many other theists. (I also respect many of the athiests, by the way.)
I honestly don’t recall whether I’ve used an offensive phrase; now that it has been brought to my attention, I certainly won’t do so, and apologize for any unintended offenses. I don’t see any value in thoughtlessly and indiscriminately pissing off persons of good will.
Mr. Visible, thanks for a thoughtful response. Like you, I look to have my preconceptions challenged and my insight sharpened, and I give as I expect. I “respect” your views by assuming that you are an intelligent person who came by those views in a fairly sensible manner (which can include, in some cases, that they “jest growed” from parental/early development standards not thought through). Like you, I see them as challengeable on a rational-argument basis.
What I do find offensive in those who do it is the ridiculing of another’s views, whether religious or whatever. I spent a fair amount of time challenging the inanities propounded by Wildest Bill on a rational basis, with due reference to the Christian faith we both professed, while at the same time defending him to others as not trolling but sincerely convinced of the bizarreries he posted. IIRC, I did similarly quite early on in my time here for a gay person convinced he was being tarred and feathered by a conservative group of posters – Hastur if memory serves, though it’s pretty vague at this point.
One key point in what’s being said here that seems to be ignored by many is that the preconceptions of some about religious beliefs held by others are not valid. I do not hold by the Divine Weasel and his Creation shell game, his professions of love while being prepared to throw everyone who doesn’t give the right password into the molten brimstone, and his decision to create some of you with a desire that he considers automatic grounds for Hell. However, the most vocal of his supporters have spread the Jonathan Edwards POV of the Christian God to the extent that those of us who are taking a more irenic stand for what He truly is (at least in our understanding) get drowned out for the most part.
As for our final paragraphs, mine, like yours, was polemic and reductio ad absurdam. In point of fact, it is my religious beliefs that motivate me to take what is in some Christian circles an unpopular stance in support of gay people and their rights. And it is a strain to have to stand up for what I believe right when people are determined to use any argument they can in contravention of it. But no, my doing right is dependent not on whether you call God names or even whether I believe in Him, but rather on my own self-esteem and my belief that I am indeed doing right. It is, however, a direct command of the God in whom I believe that I must in fact stand up and be counted alongside you. And I would appreciate your seeing and acknowledging that fact, simply because it’s fairly lonely in that particular trench (over half the Christian people who fight that battle alongside me have already posted to this thread) – and it’d be nice to know that somebody realizes that God (in my POV at least) is on your side, not that of the guys who claim to follow Him but seem to have a great misunderstanding of what He said was important.
Okay, I’m going to answer these in order with this proviso: I’m not discussing all the ways religion is or is not a crock or a scam. Please re-read the OP: You will see that in no way does it ask “Gee, why do you refer to God as the Invisible Sky Pixie”? Why didn’t I ask that? Because even feeble-minded little ol’ me knows that’s an invitation for you to explain to me, in detail, all the ways that something very important to me is IYO a load of crap. That’s not an invitation I issued and, as I have said, I find it very telling that many of you cannot resist informing me of it anyway.
This is the subject of the OP: “Do you understand that by using derisive and belittling language about god(s), you quite likely offend people, be it ever so mildly? If you do understand that, are you willing to stop doing it?” That is the only subject of this thread.
Nor am I going to post to respond to people who say, in effect and sometimes at great length – Yes, I realize this may be or is offensive but, no, I’m not going to stop doing it. That responds directly to the OP, and requires no response in turn from me.
MILLER –
Why are those the only two choices? Is not an obvious third choice to both hold their opinions and make them known in a way that is not actively derisive? If I believed homosexuality was wrong, I still might be expected to discuss the subject without referring to gay people as fairies and fags, even if I think those terms are hi-larious, and even if they nicely express the contempt with which I view gays. (If I viewed gays with contempt, which I don’t.) Furthermore, I should be expected to refrain from referring to them as fairies and fags in conversations not about homosexuality, but rather about other things, where homosexuality or homosexuals just comes up tangentially, even if each mention affords me the opportunity to get a shot in, and therefore again register the disapproval with which I view all gays.
In other words, and once again, I am talking about common courtesy. Not religion. Surely no one is arguing that one must be a jerk to express an opinion?
I find that hard to believe. MRVISIBLE’s post was derisive and dismissive; so much so, in fact, that I find it surprising anyone would argue with a straight face it was not. In fact, it is a point IMO so obvious that I don’t intend to argue it further; I think we can agree his posts speak for themselves.
No, it wasn’t. See above.
I’m not sure what this means. If I use a term you find disrespectful, and you point out that you find it disrespectful, is in fair to dismiss your opinion as an inability on your part “to separate yourself from your beliefs”? What does that mean, anyway?
MR.VISIBLE –
This is obviously incorrect. Do you not recognize a difference between refraining from being insulting out of respect for a person, and endorsing the beliefs of that person? If I refrain from calling you a fudge-packer, or other distasteful – but, hey, factually accurate! – terms, does that mean I am endorsing your homosexuality, or the manner in which you practice it? No one is asking you to respect the beliefs themselves. I have only asked that you refrain from being actively derisive about them.
The thing that most dismays me about this is that you probably don’t see any insult here, either.
Do you enjoy being called a fairy or a fag? Do you enjoy hearing the expression of the love you have for your significant other being construed as an abomination, an unnatural act on par with child abuse or bestiality? No? Well, is your confidence in what you are and what you are worth so fragile and weak that you can’t let such childishness go by unchallenged? Or is it just that your delicate sensibilities can’t take the humor?
No, I very clearly did not. But do you generally express this level of derisiveness for other beliefs you don’t share but know are deeply held? If so – why?
I don’t believe in ESP or ghosts or fairies. But if I am conversing with people whom I know do, I don’t refer to those who hold such beliefs as “feeble-minded” or “weak” or “deluded.” Why? Because it’s insulting.
I have not asked you to respect my beliefs. I have asked you to acknowledge that good people hold those beliefs, and to refrain from being actively offensive out of respect for those people, not as an endorsement of their beliefs. I ask this with all due respect and no sarcasm: Do you not see this distinction?
REPRISE, I found your post very thought-provoking and I thank you for it. I wonder how those on the other side of this discussion would respond to it? I invite them to do so.
CJ, STEVEN, ULTRESS, BRICKER – Thanks for your posts. I would only respond to ULTRESS by saying that I think it is always a good idea to have discussions such as this. Things are almost always better for being out in the open, though I admit when you invite discussion on subjects you feel strongly about, you have to be prepared to get socked in the metaphorical eye. (And I feel like I have been, but it’s actually not pissing me off, since I knew it would probably happen and I’ve planted my feet. So thank you to whomever suggested I take a deep breath, but I assure you it isn’t necessary. Yet. ) Anyway, I still think the discussion is valuable. A lot more people are reading this discussion than are participating in it, and I hope that at least some of them are thinking “Yeah, I can see why that probably does bother [poster I like/respect], so I guess I’ll knock it off.” (What FERROUS and others have said, and I thank them for it.) Maybe this hope is another delusion – because I’m, y’know, delusional – but I think I’ll keep it.
ROBERT –
Since this is not a discussion of religion, I will only point out in passing that the Bible is not the only text of people who believe in God or gods, nor is it universally accepted as a 100% “factually accurate” resource even for those who do use it. I appreciate your point that superstition != wrong, however (even if superstition is what we are discussing).
Anyway, if anyone wants to respond, please respond to REPRISE’s post. I think it’s a good one and far more deserving of the time and effort of a reply than my posts have been.
Jeez, you guys are fast. Um, thanks POLY, you humble me as usual and please note: I’m not feeling particular persecuted (or at all, for that matter); I don’t find the term horrifyingly beyond the pale, but I do think people ought to see that some might take offense at it, be it ever so mild. Call the use of it “gauche,” as GAUDERE does; I’d agree with that.
Martin Luther King Jr.
Oscar Romero
Ghandi
Mark Twain
Pope John XXIII
Francis of Assisi
Bartolome de las Casas Polycarp
the Dalai Llama
It’s not “magical sky pixie” itself I find offensive. Heck, it IS kind of cute in a way. It’s the intent behind it-the mocking of something we hold dear.
On the contrary, I don’t feel persecuted. Instead, I feel as if people are simply not showing the same common courtesy towards me that I extend to them. You know, that whole Golden Rule thing?
Poly’s post brings up a peripheral point; Poly, one of our most respected posters, refers to the God of the fundamentalists as the Divine Weasel; certainly an insulting term, and one that implies the followers are weakminded (worshipping a weasel, after all). In debates he will directly say that a poster worships the Divine Weasel. How is this different from referring to a Christian’s God as a Magical Sky Pixie?
I, for one, do appreciate that many of the SDMB Christians reject the hidebound legalism that the more Pharisaical wing of Christianity seeks to cram their religion into. I admire any philosophy, religious or secular, that seeks to include rather than exclude, that values compassion over conformity. I admire the Sufis who. because they seek an ecstatic perfect union with God, are persecuted by the Islamic legalists. I admire the Christians who view their relgious convictions as an injunction to work for peace, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked.
My problem is with the people like Dreamer who wield their religion like a weapon and insist that their rules apply even to people who do not share their beliefs.
Moreover, I fail to understand the fundie focus on eschatology and the Last Days. Jesus himself downplayed that and talked instead about how living in God’s will should affect one’s daily conduct. It seems that the main raison d’etre of Dreamer’s belief is her fear of being consigned to Hell–what about simply living day to day in grace? What about compassion, forbearance, mercy? Those seem to be rejected in favor of the appeasemetn of a sanguinary god who rejoices in the eternal torment of His enemies. I reject that religion as unfit for the allegiance of any decent human being.
The fundie emphasis on legalist obedience to the law that contradicts the spirit of the law was addressed most eleoquently by William Blake in his poem, “The Garden of Love”:
I try to avoid the MSP, if only out of respect for participants in a serious discussion. But when the evangleical brickbats start flying, I reserve my right to ridicule opponents as I see fit.
MrVisible, we believers have had a long head start, but I should point out that in the past century, y’all have made up for centuries of lost time. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - all atheists, operating within the context of specifically atheistic systems of government. Stalin: twenty million butchered. Pol Pot: an estimated three million. And I’ve got no idea about Mao, but I’m sure he left a noticeable amount of blood in his wake too.
Atheists can shoot 'em down just as well as the practitioners of any religion, and despite the fact that we believers still outnumber you many times over, your casualties are starting to add up almost as much as ours.
This gives atheists almost as much to be proud of as we believers do.
So everyone here should respect my religion, too? Or is Eris too absurd? Hmm. I don’t think I like the notion that people would start taking me seriously with regards to Discordianism. What fun would that be? I mean, sure, I’m a pope and all, but with reverence and respect I’d feel awkward not wearing funny hats.
Oh, wait, I have a beret so I guess I can manage. Still.
Well, it is my belief that 14 year olds can meaningfully consent to sexual behavior in the general case (not in all cases). I’ve been attacked for that as being harmful. But I guess that’s ok?
Magical Sky Pixie… why not call a spade a spade if it looks like a spade? I don’t call cigarettes “fags” when I speak to a brit. I still call them what I always called them, and I calls 'em likes I sees 'em.
I mean, we’re supposed to respect your beliefs that God is real, yet you can’t respect our belief that God is a schmuck and religion is a scam? As they say, the right to your fist’s freedom ends at my nose or however that saying goes (I never liked it, anyway). It hurts to hear that what we treasure is hated by others. This is true. But we also choose to fight ignorance on many topics.
Pretend, for instance, that there is no god and the atheists are right. It would be our duty as good dopers to fight the ignorant belief that any MSP exists. Hold the opposite, and it would be your duty to tell the ignorant atheists how wrong they are. On this message board. Since there seems to be a real standstill as far as figuring out just what is and isn’t ignorant here, we debate it with all the ferocity a teenager has for sex (oops, I forgot how wrong I am on this) and there you have it.
I say call a spade a spade. Atheists are already telling you that you are wrong; why would any “magical sky pixie” comment be any more offensive than the statement “You are wrong about your most cherished belief”?
Seems silly to me, Jodi. But, if you say that MSP offends you and “I think you are totally wrong about your metaphysical view of reality” doesn’t, then out of respect for you as a fellow doper I guess I’ll comply.
Given your, “Nyah nyah nyah, ‘Jesus Christ on a stick’ and I’ll say it as much as I want even if it does offend you” barb to Libertarian in another thread in this forum, I’m not even sure you have the right to play this card. You should expect, at the very least, to get as good as you give.
Lib, thank you for your thoughts. As I said, I try; I just am not very good at it. I have been accused of a lot of things on the SDMB and in life, but “good judgement” has never been one of them. But that’s my problem, and not anyone else’s.
Sorry, no cigar. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot (might as well add Hitler, Ceaucescu, Honecker, Enver Hoxha, and Kim Il Sung) did not kill Christians in a religious crusade for atheism. They (excepting Hitler) were Communists wiping out class enemies, of which Christians were only a small sub-segment. Their genocides stemmed from politics, not religion, and their atheism was only a by-product of their political ideology.
Well, now I don’t know how you use the term respect, but in your OP you said: “…it seems to me that there are a lot of people using extremely derisive terms to refer to the deeply-held beliefs of others…” Which is to say, there are a lot of people not respecting my religion.
The difference I see, and one that is important to me (though it may not be important to others), is that “faggot” and other homophobic slurs are direct slurs against a person or a group of people. The equivalent against Christians might be “fundie” or “jesus freak” (though those terms aren’t as emotionally charged, I do think they’re intentionally dismissive). Because I don’t have a desire to use perjorative names to refer to a group of people, at least when I’m in polite company, I don’t use those words. However, refering to a god as a “magical sky pixie” isn’t a slur against anyone (except maybe the god or pixies). It is not directly dismissive of people, but rather an idea.
Indeed, one of the tenets of GD is “don’t attack the person, attack the idea”, and I think using different language to refer to an idea to show (what some might find to be) the inherent absurdity of the idea when it is stripped of it’s reverant language a perfectly valid (if possibly abrasive) technique. People always deserve respect, but for ideas respect has to be earned through validity. Christians deserve respect, and shouldn’t be refered to using deragatory names, but does the idea of the Christian god deserve respect? Im my opinion: no.
I wouldn’t call believers in alien abductions “morons”, but I won’t have a problem with calling the idea “silly”, or dismissing the claims as “tales of little green men”, even though believers in the idea are likely to take offense to that. I think “magical sky pixie” falls into the same category. I wouldn’t use it unless I was trying to be dismissive towards the idea, but sometimes that is called for.
Anyway, what I don’t like about “magical sky pixie” is that it strikes me as redundant. Wouldn’t a sky pixie perforce be magical?
