Damn, you beat me!
Um… says you!
Carol Stream, go sit in a warm, festering tub of santorum.
Now, let’s get back on topic:
Like wise, I know asshole theists who don’t follow THEIR teachings to the letter. Very few do.
Look, for every Archbishop Chimoio, you have an Archbishop Romero. For every Osama Bin Laden, there is a Dalai Lama. Gandhi. Jim Jones. Pat Robertson. Hugh O’Flaherty. Jim Baker. Martin Luther King Jr. Jerry Falwell. Need I go on?
What we need to do-and it IS the duty of those of us who do believe in god, or gods, or whatever, to try and aid those who use their beliefs to further good.
And that means EVERYONE has to work together, as the article Linty Fresh linked to earlier.
(I suppose all this has been said before, over and over, but I feel I have to say something, since I originally popped into this thread because Der Trihs’s complete and utter ignorance of history annoys the living shit out of me.
I don’t give a shit if you’re an atheist, or a Christian, or an agnostic, or hell, if you worship a rusty old tunafish can. Just don’t be an fuckstick.
*The above I always bring up, as they are personal heroes of mine.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Carol Stream, go sit in a warm, festering tub of santorum.
Go finger yourself, becuse it’s all you’ll ever get.
I didn’t mean to imply they were the same as “the big three”, only that the basic characteristic is that it created the universe, knows everything, and cares what we do. If it doesn’t have those characteristics, is it relevant? If so, how?
jesus christ…give it a rest.
Hey! You didn’t capitalize a proper noun! Troll! 
(Although you should have done so with “Jesus”-because it was the first word of the sentence-that’s more about sentence structure. 
I know…it’s just that Carol Stream’s response to it is just so … over the top … that I got carried away. Even my brother-in-law (who thinks I’m a commie) didn’t get this offended. I’ve never had someone actually try to silence the opposing viewpoint so vigorously before. It’s amazing how some people are so threatened by this personal protest of mine that they would lose sight of the basic tenets of our constitution – religious freedom – and actually try to shut me down over my stylistic choice in this matter.
I haven’t read the last 4 pages of the thread, as I skimmed and saw the usual arguments, (although they did seem relatively polite, kudos), but these are words to live by.
Consider the source-this is pretty much standard Carol.
While Carol Stream can be a persnickity little bitch, there is a point to be made. Your explanation here would explain why you might not want to capitalize “god”. I do, because I believe that there is a Creator of some flavor, and if so, He probably deserves the cap. But with Jesus Christ, you’re refusal to capitalize it really isn’t helpful if you want to have a discussion with a theist, or I’d say, just a realist. I looked at some of your other posts in other threads and you seem to follow the convention of capitalizing person’s names, Debra Winger, for one. Now whether the person we all think of as attached to the name Jesus Christ is imbued with any God-like power is really beside the point. In fact, even if you are right and there is no God and Jesus was just a man, why wouldn’t you capitalize his name. Why single him out? The answer is what you’ve admitted to—to tweak the theists. This childish nonsense is one of the things that makes discussion difficult, just the sort of stuff the OP sought to explore. Nonsense like this and other similar rudeness and condescension are one of the reason I rarely participate in religious threads.
And for the record, you’re a fucking asshole for making me agree with Carol Stream.
Regarding the capitalization issue, I think it is all about context. When I was in my first few years of University, I declared a Religious Studies major to take some courses in Ancient Judaism and Biblical Hebrew. In these courses, I followed the rule of writing G-d instead of the full word. For a long time, this remained my habit even after I dropped the major. I slip in and out now, but I was studying in an arena where the existence of their god was not in question and atheism was not the point - I was in their world by my own choice after all, and it seemed respectful to me. That being said, I’m not really sure why a theist would be offended in a debate about the existence of a god to have the atheist discussing the point not capitalize the names of the deities. I see it less as a grammar issue, and more as an affirmation of belief. The atheist, lacking belief, may see the theist usage of the terms as an affirmation of the existence of the deity. Does that make sense? I’m working on 20 plus hours of no sleep, so I may be talking out of my ass.
This makes sense, as I mentioned above, as it refers to deities. But as far as we know, there was a man named Jesus. I can even see someone objecting to the "Christ " part if they want to be the anti-Carol stream, but then “Jesus” or “Jesus of Nazzareth”. This lower case nonsense really is the stuff of a toddler and not helpful to discussion.
Is this the right room for an argument?
I agree that Carol Stream has gone over the top. There’s nothing wrong with a committed “atheist” like Kalhoun refusing to capitalize proper nouns, even if it’s only to “annoy” people, and I think I might take a leaf out of “her” book in future dealings with “her”.
Actually, the god-like power attributed to jesus is precisely why I don’t capitalize it. It’s not the name…it’s the power that’s been attached to it. The story says that he is god on Earth and that he possesses unearthly powers.
Honestly…as Jillyvn pointed out…jews have been using theiir stylistic choice with the whole g_d thing since forever. When have they been called out on it? It is much more of an annoying infraction than my style choice, but they get a pass because their deity is sooooooo awesome that we can’t even write his name? Get real.
Very “well” argued. 
I think a lot of believers might say they believe in God in some form without going to specifics. They sense some transcendent other moving in their lives and choose a religious path that appeals to them. It isn’t necessary for them to define this other in order to commune through prayer or meditation, or to feel a spiritual presence that moves them.
When it comes to separating truth from superstition the truth is, that works for them.
I think it’s important so separate fact from myth in those areas where religious tradition flies in the face of available evidence. Evolution vs creationism, the archaeological evidence about the bible, things like that. I agree with Sam Harris that religious beliefs should not be off limits for honest open examination, and even criticism. The question of whether God exists in some form and what god’s attributes might be remains open. We simply don’t have the means or the information needed to make that call yet.
That fact, and the fact that you can’t know what’s best for the inner person, means IMHO, that we should allow for different paths for different people and respond to the actions. Religion has spawned it’s saints and it’s horror shows, but I’ve yet to see any evidence that rejecting god belief makes someone a better person.
When you say religion isn’t necessary all you can really accurately state with any degree of certainty is that it isn’t necessary for you.
I found this particularly funny given the context of this thread 
I get the whole different strokes thing. But if a person can’t describe what they think god is, it makes it a little hard to discuss it with relation to available evidence or impact on our world. I think identifying it as being conscious, as being a deliberate creator, and as being a caring entity would put it in the “god” category. If any of these attributes are missing, it becomes meaningless in terms of religious discussion.
I don’t agree. Such a definition makes many eastern religions “not religions”.
For example - some forms of Buddhism and Taoism. Some forms (one must be careful here because there is a full spectrum in both cases) are quite uninterested in gods external to creation.
While they are certainly not always religions of the same nature as the big three monotheistic religions, I would argue that for the pupose of discussion they are certainly “religions” for the pupose of analysing their impact on society. They often have all the indicia of religions - a professional clergy, rituals, salvation of sorts, and most importantly, group self-identity.
In fact they shed considerable light on the nature of religions.
There also exists mysticism unrelated to any religious traditions - indeed, one could argue that true mysticism, as in “the mystic experience”, is always a personal thing and is often considered as transcending religious traditions (for example, the Sufi poet Hafiz was famous for proclaiming that the true love of god makes one a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim, and presumably everything else as well).
My thesis? That religion and the religious impulse are not necessarily the same - one can have a godly form of mysticism outside of religion (see Hafiz), and a formal religion without gods (see Buddhism).
I think the reasonable thing is for believers and non believers to admit there is no objective evidence and we just can’t know in the scientific sense. Where does that leave the discussion?
There isn’t any meaningful discussion in the “prove god exists” area. The discussion that gets meaningful is the “why I believe” and “why I don’t” and digging into the details of human interaction. What comes from god belief or a lack of it? What do I value?
Actually I think there is plenty of work available just debunking the myths we already know are false. Encouraging people to examine their belief systems and sift the fact from tradition is a plus, but I think it’s best we not throw out the fruits with the pits.