[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
But he’s not considered to be just a man – his entire identity has to do with him being the son of god, which means he’s not a man. I’m not confused about when to capitalize a proper name and when not to; from an atheist standpoint, not capitalizing his name fits perfectly with my little mini-protest.
[/QUOTE]
His entire identity has to do with that if you’re a Christian. If you’re a Jew or Muslim he’s just a prophet. If you’re none of the above, he’s just an interesting historical figure.
Cesare Borgia was a dick; would you routinely not capitalize his name too?
A very cursory search through your posting history revealed this:
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Out of curiosity, Mace, what do you think about McCain’s failure to respond to the question at all? He had the opportunity to qualify his response, too…and chose to remain silent on the issue.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I think she’s too old for Barbie stuff (at least my niece was at that age).
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Every time we talk on the phone, my dad says " 'ello Mrs. Cut-out!" Can anyone identify where that comes from? (I know…just want to know if YOU know.)
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
For us it was The Wizard of Oz and the original Frankenstein. The Wizard of Oz is timeless, and Frankenstein…well, 'nuff said. We turned the young 'un on to these at around 5 years old.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I saw him about 15 years ago with Johnny Winter. It was one of the best concerts EVAH. I envy you!
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Out of curiosity, Mace, what do you think about McCain’s failure to respond to the question at all? He had the opportunity to qualify his response, too…and chose to remain silent on the issue.
[/QUOTE]
So, you do follow the convention of capitalizing names. Even those of not real people. Yet, you draw this childish line at “Jesus”. Come on, man… You can’t expect to pull this shit and be expected to be taken seriously in any religious discussion, can you?
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
<snippage>
2. In the Pit, many posts are written specifically to piss people off. Calling someone a douchebag has no other purpose, really. So pointing out that someone’s Pit post was intended to annoy as proof of trolling is, well, retarded.<further snippage>
[/QUOTE]
You’re aware that Kalhoun has a persistent history of refusing to capitalize any word to do with Christianity regardless of forum, aren’t you? All that’s Pit-specific is the actual admission that this is routinely done to piss Christians off. Run that word “retarded” by me one more time, wouldja? :dubious:
How about a nifty compromise? Just write his name as Jesus christ; capitalizing his given name, “Jesus”, but leaving the title ascribed to him by his followers (the Christ) lower-case.
Or, you could leave the Christ/christ out entirely–just write “Jesus” or “Jesus of Nazareth” or maybe “JEsUs 0f NaZaR3tH” 'cause that looks waaaaaay rad, dude!
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
This has already been answered, but I’ll throw in my own Pit-mod spin:
The rule on trolling is meant to describe posting behavior that, when taken as a whole, reveals a primary motivation of trying to piss people off and cause a reaction. Assessing said motivation is of course highly subjective, which is why we have mods to make judgement calls. We wrote the forum rules to give you guys a general idea of how those calls are made, not to provide weapons for rules literalists to use against those they disagree with.
In the Pit, many posts are written specifically to piss people off. Calling someone a douchebag has no other purpose, really. So pointing out that someone’s Pit post was intended to annoy as proof of trolling is, well, retarded.
If you find yourself constantly trying to get the mods to rule against people in the Pit, maybe you should consider posting in another forum.
[/QUOTE]
Can I interpret this as saying, "Two swallows does not make a summer, nor one post a troll! "??
[QUOTE=magellan01]
No. Everyone agrees that he was a man. Some people also believe that he was the Son of God. Those that do not believe that—the majority of the world, by the way—STILL agree that he was a man. A man with a name. A name, like any other, that should be capitalized. It’s really that simple.
[/QUOTE]
Nope. Like I said…I’m quite aware of proper usage. My stylistic use of lower case is a protest specifically related to christian religion and the silly notion that he is something other than a plain ol’ human being. It is a direct result of the anger I feel about the way atheists are forced to fight for our right to be religion-free. If I get into a discussion regarding his carpentry skills or something like that, I may reconsider. However, it rarely comes up.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Yeah, I run into this problem a lot. I don’t see how two completely different concepts can use the same word to describe them, but evidently this is how it is. For purposes of clarity, religion, to me, has to include a deity that is conscious, that cares, and that can control the universe. The looser version, those people who don’t have deities but have a world view…I don’t see how they can be discussed in the same conversation. I’m not saying they can’t…I just need someone to show me why this* isn’t * apples and oranges. One has gods, magic and worship; both have an element of group think, but one attributes nothing to the supernatural. How can they be called the same thing? THey have some overlap, but are decidedly different concepts at their core.
[/QUOTE]
You are approaching it from a different angle. To you, the content of belief is more important, and that belief has to include a caring concious deity - which is, ironically enough, a very Judeo-Christian POV.
To my mind, a better way to approach the subject is anthropologically. Does this group have a church of sorts? a professional priesthood? A common doctrine? Preside over life-changing rituals like ceremonies for those who are born, married, and die? People self-identify with this group? If the answer is “yes” to all these, it is probably an organized religion. Details of docrine may vary.
The examples of Buddhism and the like are very problematic otherwise. Some varieties of popular Buddhism clearly treat the Buddha as a god to be worshipped; many varieties believe in some aspects of the supernatural; but not all. Taking your classification, “Pure Land” Buddhism would be a religion but Theravada Buddhism wouldn’t be, which is quite counterintuitive.
A very cursory search through your posting history revealed this:
So, you do follow the convention of capitalizing names. Even those of not real people. Yet, you draw this childish line at “Jesus”. Come on, man… You can’t expect to pull this shit and be expected to be taken seriously in any religious discussion, can you?
[/QUOTE]
You didn’t have to go through all that effort. I’ve made it clear for ages that it’s reserved for religion. What part of “personal protest” don’t you understand??
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Nope. Like I said…I’m quite aware of proper usage. My stylistic use of lower case is a protest specifically related to christian religion and the silly notion that he is something other than a plain ol’ human being. It is a direct result of the anger I feel about the way atheists are forced to fight for our right to be religion-free.
[/QUOTE]
In other words, “Whaaaaaaaahhhhh”. Grow the fuck up, idiot. And one would think that an atheist, one who supposedly values rational discussion, would welcome debating religion with a theist, as that would be where you engage and may change minds. But you, instead, look to it as a platform to display petulance and short-circuit the descussion. At the ame time allowing those you are engaged with to think, “Wow, these atheists really are immature, spiteful little cunts, aren’t they.”
So, well done, champ. :Way to fight the good fight. rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
You didn’t have to go through all that effort. I’ve made it clear for ages that it’s reserved for religion. What part of “personal protest” don’t you understand??
[/QUOTE]
The part that is childish and self-defeating. Anything else you need help with, douchebag?
May I propose a compromise of sorts? (I don’t expect this will actually resolve anything, but may put the true issues in high relief.) How about if Kalhoun capitalizes the words “Jesus Christ” and “God” but does what I just did, putting the words inside quotation marks? The effect would be her reminding everyone that she doesn’t accept the terms other than as the concepts that Christians take them to signify–it would be the equivalent of saying, in slightly more polite form, “This Jesus Christ of whom you people speak and whom you seem to believe really existed and continues to exist.”
Because that’s what in effect she’s doing by lower-casing the names. She’s reminding people that she doesn’t accept these terms in any sense that a Christian does and is using them, not because she concedes that they have any relationship to reality or history or anything else, but allow her to discuss these strange concepts which oppress and offend her.
Is that any better? Because if not, you’re essentially conceding that her capitalizing these words is a victory for Christians in forcing non-believers to behave in certain ways, which I think is her point here.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Nope. Like I said…I’m quite aware of proper usage. My stylistic use of lower case is a protest specifically related to christian religion and the silly notion that he is something other than a plain ol’ human being. It is a direct result of the anger I feel about the way atheists are forced to fight for our right to be religion-free. If I get into a discussion regarding his carpentry skills or something like that, I may reconsider. However, it rarely comes up.
[/QUOTE]
How about “Jesus, the so-called Christ” then. I’ve never seen Jesus not capitalized even in Jewish writings. Capitalization neither implies existence (Sherlock Holmes) or goodness (Attila the Hun, George W. Bush ).
As for God/god, I use god to mean a generic god, and God to represent the deity the western religions believe in, given the fuzziness of what this particular god is like. It is sometimes good to remind Christians that they don’t have a monopoly on the concept of god.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
The difference being that atheists aren’t supposed to point out the latter, but it’s just fine for the theists to claim that atheists are stupid, evil, liars, or traitors.
[/QUOTE]
For whatever it’s worth, this theist does not think it’s okay to claim that atheists are stupid, evil, liars, or traitors, based solely on their atheism. But I’m just another stupid, evil, lying theist.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
In other words, “Whaaaaaaaahhhhh”. Grow the fuck up, idiot. And one would think that an atheist, one who supposedly values rational discussion, would welcome debating religion with a theist, as that would be where you engage and may change minds. But you, instead, look to it as a platform to display petulance and short-circuit the descussion. At the ame time allowing those you are engaged with to think, “Wow, these atheists really are immature, spiteful little cunts, aren’t they.”
So, well done, champ. :Way to fight the good fight. rolleyes:
But please, PLEASE tell me you’re in junior high.
[/QUOTE]
I’m happy to discuss religion. I’ve been civil. I’ve brought substance to the discussion. But the minute someone dares to dispute the greatness of the christian savior and express general dissatisfaction with the incessant, overblown yammering about him through (gasp!) symbolic protest, you all come unglued. If that’s all it takes to derail the discussion, then it sounds like you didn’t have much to say in the first place.
The only one crying like a little bitch here is you, asshole.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
No. Everyone agrees that he was a man.
[/QUOTE]
Not everyone. I (and a few others, I believe) are of the opinion that he was wholly made up - a complete myth. There was no one historical man Jesus, IMO.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I (and a few others, I believe) are of the opinion that he was wholly made up - a complete myth. There was no one historical man Jesus, IMO.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Not everyone. I (and a few others, I believe) are of the opinion that he was wholly made up - a complete myth. There was no one historical man Jesus, IMO.
[/QUOTE]
It’s true there is no clear evidence that he actually existed.
