On the SDMB, why do atheists and theists have to be such utter dicks to each other?

[Jillyvn]

When I was driving home today, I was thinking some more about this whole capitalization issue. (Yep, I’m -just- that lame).

From a certain perspective, it would behove the atheist (counting myself in these ranks) to use the proper religious grammatical conventions when discussing specific deities. I humbly suggest using god when discussing the abstract conception of deities in general, and using the proper naming conventions when addressing a specific deity. Doing this make sense for two reasons: first, it adds a cordiality to the discussion that may mitigate some of the “dick” accusations that inevitably derail any debate. Second, it evidences a level of cultural literacy that actually reinforces your argument. It shows at least a basic level of familiarity with the specifics of the religion you are debating. The fact that you are vocally atheist should be enough of a point. Seriously, it is just a keystroke for you after all. Capitilization won’t magically transform the lack of authority you give to the theistic worldview, and it doesn’t distract from the finer points of your debate.

If we can make this concession, then perhaps the theists can stop lumping atheists under one umbrella definition. We’re not all militant. I, for one, count myself as a soft atheist. I agree with the points made by Dawkins and company ninety percent of the time, but I can also see when they go overboard - yet, I find these instances amusing rather than offensive. On the other hand, while I’m pretty certain a god does not exist, I’m willing to admit I might be wrong. Perhaps I’m more of a strong agnostic. I dunno.

[Bryan_Ekers]

So, should it be Flying Spaghetti Monster or flying spaghetti monster?

[Jillyvn]

@Bryan Ekers

So, should it be Flying Spaghetti Monster or flying spaghetti monster?

Well, that had me snorting my water. Well played.

[magellan01]

@Bryan Ekers

So, should it be Flying Spaghetti Monster or flying spaghetti monster?

I guess it depends on how eager you are to be rude and/or short-circuit the discussion. It happens time and again on these boards. But perhaps you’d like to contribute to answering the OP (see top of page for title) and explain why you, or others, would insist on using such terms.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@MaxTheVool

IWould the world be better or worse if religion had never existed? That question can’t possibly be answered.

It can’t be answered definitively. But **Kalhoun ** is entitled to her opinion, which I believe is that the world would be immeasurably better off right now if there were no organized religion. She’s arguing against people who maintain that it is clearly and definitively manifest that the world would be far, far worse off if it were not for religion.

You’re acting like a supposedly neutral arbiter here, listening to this ferocious argument for a while and concluding, “Okay, Kalhoun, you shut up here. You’re wrong. You’ve lost this argument. Start putting capital letters where they belong, because you haven’t demonstrated that the world would be better off if there were no religion.” Your default position is that of the Christian world at large, which is basically a “tyranny of the majority” position: Christians get to posit their offensively biased views as normative and to impose them on others simply because they’re in the majority here (on the SD and in the US).

[Bryan_Ekers]

@magellan01

I guess it depends on how eager you are to be rude and/or short-circuit the discussion. It happens time and again on these boards. But perhaps you’d like to contribute to answering the OP (see top of page for title) and explain why you, or others, would insist on using such terms.

Well, truth be told, I don’t generally use “Flying Spaghetti Monster” or “Invisible Pink Unicorn” because they’re unnecessarily hostile (unless, of course, I’m going for a quick laugh, which in the Faith of Bryan is a paramount virtue). When it comes time to seriously analyze issues of faith, I prefer to use Zeus (who was worshipped quite devotedly by millions of people for hundreds of years) as my start point.

Anyway, if you think I was being “rude”, feel free to dismiss my point, which was simply that if you choose to revere (i.e. capitalize) an arbitrary construct, you have no logical reason to expect others to do so, nor to take offense if they revere something different bu no less arbitrary.

Frankly, I’m a bit dismayed by the casual use of “Jesus Christ”, as though that was the person’s full name. He should be “Joshua bar-Joseph”, or “Jesus the Christ”, if lay worshippers had spent even minimal effort in research. I don’t doubt the various priests and bishops and such are educated on these points, though the casual incorrectness of the flock is interesting.

There weren’t “three kings”, for example. Matthew 2 never specifies the number of the magi. Though it’s a common convention that the number of visitors equalled the number of stated gifts, this relies more (in modern times, at least), on the Christmas carol We Three Kings of Orient Are written by John Hopkins jr. circa 1860. Similarly, a great deal of what lay Christians believe about angels and heaven and hell and such relies more on the writings of John Milton and Dante Alighieri (well, at least such details that have gradually seeped into the popular culture, since even their writings aren’t commonly studied by the general population) than any biblical source.

If you want to object to trivial irreverances, good for you. I’m not particularly convinced that most modern followers worship in a manner consistent with the gospels of the new testament, and when they get offended at a lack of respect for what they themselves don’t fully understand, I’m disinclined to take them seriously.

Though I won’t (generally) go out of my way to be a dick about it.

[magellan01]

@Bryan Ekers

Well, truth be told, I don’t generally use “Flying Spaghetti Monster” or “Invisible Pink Unicorn” because they’re unnecessarily hostile (unless, of course, I’m going for a quick laugh, which in the Faith of Bryan is a paramount virtue). When it comes time to seriously analyze issues of faith, I prefer to use Zeus (who was worshipped quite devotedly by millions of people for hundreds of years) as my start point.

Anyway, if you think I was being “rude”, feel free to dismiss my point, which was simply that if you choose to revere (i.e. capitalize) an arbitrary construct, you have no logical reason to expect others to do so, nor to take offense if they revere something different bu no less arbitrary.

Frankly, I’m a bit dismayed by the casual use of “Jesus Christ”, as though that was the person’s full name. He should be “Joshua bar-Joseph”, or “Jesus the Christ”, if lay worshippers had spent even minimal effort in research. I don’t doubt the various priests and bishops and such are educated on these points, though the casual incorrectness of the flock is interesting.

There weren’t “three kings”, for example. Matthew 2 never specifies the number of the magi. Though it’s a common convention that the number of visitors equalled the number of stated gifts, this relies more (in modern times, at least), on the Christmas carol We Three Kings of Orient Are written by John Hopkins jr. circa 1860. Similarly, a great deal of what lay Christians believe about angels and heaven and hell and such relies more on the writings of John Milton and Dante Alighieri (well, at least such details that have gradually seeped into the popular culture, since even their writings aren’t commonly studied by the general population) than any biblical source.

If you want to object to trivial irreverances, good for you. I’m not particularly convinced that most modern followers worship in a manner consistent with the gospels of the new testament, and when they get offended at a lack of respect for what they themselves don’t fully understand, I’m disinclined to take them seriously.

Though I won’t (generally) go out of my way to be a dick about it.

A truly baffling post, assuming you’ve read the exchanges. All those words yet you don’t address the point I’ve made repeatedly. I’ve stated that I think there is flexibility with “God”, or “god” when referring to “an arbitrary construct”. And sometimes using the two formulations aids communication in that is allows reference to a generic god versus the Christian God. But the point is that Jesus was a man, and as such, has a proper name. And proper names are capitalized. Refusing to do so is, well, you can read what I wrote above if you’re interested. If not, fine.

[tomndebb]

@Bryan Ekers

Frankly, I’m a bit dismayed by the casual use of “Jesus Christ”, as though that was the person’s full name. He should be “Joshua bar-Joseph”, or “Jesus the Christ”, if lay worshippers had spent even minimal effort in research. I don’t doubt the various priests and bishops and such are educated on these points, though the casual incorrectness of the flock is interesting.

Actually, the oldest line in Christian scripture (and numerous subsequent passages) already identifies him as “Jesus Christ” with no definite article setting off the word christ.

1 Thessalonians, 1:1 begins

Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace

and the phrase used is [symbol]kuriw Ihsou Cristw[/symbol] (kuriô Iêsou Christô), so the practice of adding the title to the name goes back to the earliest days (which is consistent with the way in which other notable persons to whom titles were affixed were handled).

[Malacandra]

And of course the Nicene Creed: “…et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, filium Dei unigenite…”, although from what I remember of my schoolboy Latin, definite articles are hard to come by.

[Fuji]

@magellan01

She? Fine. How can you say she isn’t? She admitted doing it to irk people. People she supposedly wants to have a civil discussion with. And just because YOU weren’t offended, doesn’t mean that her punk bitch tactic is not offensive to many. I find it offensive, not even so much on religious ground, but on the grounds of stupidty, childishness, and petulance. Oh, and douchebagness.

I can say she isn’t, because that’s how I see it. Of all the possible slights to one’s religion, I am staggered that you take such offense at an idiosyncratic usage of capital letters. I guess you should also take me to task because I used the phrase “Jesus H. Christ” as an expletive in another thread. Have at it. You’re not doing “your side” any favors.

You know what I find offensive? This knee-jerk defensiveness and the associated hyperbolic rage as demonstrated by your comments. Get a freaking sense of perspective, man.

[Fuji]

@Wile E

I’m confused, is there a point to this thread other than just being yet another thread where theists and atheists can be dicks to each other?

Quiet, you! You’ll ruin the irony.

[Kalhoun]

@BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed

This small form of protest that Kalhoun has adopted has really gotten people pissed off. I bet if she were writing a scholarly paper about JC she would properly cap his name. But to try to remove some of the power or sway or whatever you want to call it caused by invoking his name, even in a non-religious discussion about him, should be her choice. You might see it as childish, but if it really bothers you that much then maybe you should refuse to engage her. Just the fact that it bothers you should indicate that it’s at least having some of the effect that she intended; protests are used to call attention to an issue.

What if it were another man? What if my grandmother were killed at Auschwitz, and I refused to capitalize hitler? In a scholarly paper I probably would, because that’s not where I would choose to protest, but I might be using it as a way to deal with my own feelings on the issue. You might call me childish or an attention-seeker (“Look at me! My grandmother was killed by a mass-murderer!”), but it would really be not sweat off my ass.

The argument could be made that Jesus has caused more death than Hitler (which would be unfortunate, what with his whole stance of loving people. That’s really the problem I have with xtnt [does that bother you? I got used to writing Christianity that way in my notes because writing the word over and over was really annoying, so I began abbreviating it that way], at least from Jesus’ teachings, is largely about loving everyone), and even if you see the man himself as blameless, I’m not going to criticize someone for protesting the power that JC has in the world these days in some small way.

Might I direct you to something that should be cited much more often on the dope?

ETA: PS, my brother once referred to Jesus and the disciples, in a final art history class paper, as “JC and the boys.”

BellRung gets it.

[Kalhoun]

@magellan01

I’m not hopeful, but let’s give it a go. No one is asking you to go one iota out of your way for their religious belief. And neither party in a discussion need go one iota out of there way to intentionally piss off the other person in a discussion they supposedly want to have. Yet, you go out of your way and deviate from the convention of capitalizing a man’s name. A convention you yourself follow with people both real and imaginary. One would think that if you were interested in engaging with them, that you would not go out of your way to deviate from the norm and intentionally irk them. The very thing you admit to doing. Can you not see how that is rude? How it might be counter-productive to the type of discussion you say you want to have? How it might make you look like a douchebag?

You seek shelter from all this because “but I’m just protesting”. Newsflash, : you will be judged on your actions. Or are you one of these hopeless little platitude-filled “oh, people shouldn’t judge other people” nitwits? And your actions matter even more when they effect others. And when you intentionally go out of your way to irk someone else—never mind someone who you supposedly want to have a civil discussion with—you will be judged accordingly.

I hope that helps.

“Annoy” does not mean the same thing as “piss off.” It simply underscores my general feelings toward christianity and religion, and the utter disrespect that is doled out to atheists on a daily basis.

Newsflash: You’ve exhibited such unbelievably poor “judgement” on this issue that I’m reasonably sure your opinion of how the rest of the world will judge me is equally worthless.

[Malacandra]

@Fuji

I can say she isn’t, because that’s how I see it. Of all the possible slights to one’s religion, I am staggered that you take such offense at an idiosyncratic usage of capital letters. I guess you should also take me to task because I used the phrase “Jesus H. Christ” as an expletive in another thread. Have at it. You’re not doing “your side” any favors.

You know what I find offensive? This knee-jerk defensiveness and the associated hyperbolic rage as demonstrated by your comments. Get a freaking sense of perspective, man.

And if you came out and flat-out said you used “Jesus H. Christ” merely in order to annoy Christians, I guess I’d be on your ass too. Absent such a claim, I’ll just assume that you’re like most of us, who use the name as an expletive without malice.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Malacandra

And if you came out and flat-out said you used “Jesus H. Christ” merely in order to annoy Christians, I guess I’d be on your ass too. Absent such a claim, I’ll just assume that you’re like most of us, who use the name as an expletive without malice.

How’s “Jesus Fucking Christ in a leaky rowboat”? 'Sthat ok?

How about if I don’t capitalize his middle name? You should really publish a list of rules for atheists to follow so as not to offend Christians.

And while we’re waiting for that list, can you supply a mop for us to shove up our asses so we can swab your floors for you?

[ivan_astikov]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

How’s “Jesus Fucking Christ in a leaky rowboat”? 'Sthat ok?

How about if I don’t capitalize his middle name? You should really publish a list of rules for atheists to follow so as not to offend Christians.

And while we’re waiting for that list, can you supply a mop for us to shove up our asses so we can swab your floors for you?

I genuinely need that list…the sooner, the better!

[Malacandra]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

How’s “Jesus Fucking Christ in a leaky rowboat”? 'Sthat ok?

How about if I don’t capitalize his middle name? You should really publish a list of rules for atheists to follow so as not to offend Christians.

And while we’re waiting for that list, can you supply a mop for us to shove up our asses so we can swab your floors for you?

'Squite simple, O salamander. Whatever you do, if you actually say you did it in order to be annoying, you’ve no comeback when people say they’re annoyed. That straightforward enough for you?

Now go back to worrying your God-fearing dentist might decide to murder you because God told him to. :rolleyes:

[Dangerosa]

@hotflungwok

Right, because there certainly aren’t any countries with a majority non-religious population that we can use as a model. We certainly can’t compare statistics between them and very religious countries. And there’s simply no way we can draw a link between some kinds of behavior and religion. Nope, good job catching that.

Of course, there would be a number of confounding variables that would affect that analysis. Moreover, there has never been a society where there is NO religion - only ones where the religious have been a minority - in some cases a suppressed minority. And all societies have a historical/cultural religious basis. But go ahead and believe it to be a provable supposition. Its about as provable as God.

I’ll stand by many. I’ve heard many over the course of my life express this view. Most - certainly not most. But, IME, many.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

Ya know, I think we’re actually arriving at something like an answer to the OP’s question: atheists and theists must perforce be dicks to one another because (some of) each group takes offense at some essential terminology that the other group employs as neutral and harmless.

Atheists are offended by the ubiquitousness of religious terms (like “In God We Trust” on currency, the 10 Commandments in alabama courthouses, etc.) which theists see as mild and universal truths, and theists get all worked up when atheists refuse to show respect (like not capitalizing the names of entities the atheists view as non-existent). So each group employs language it sees as inoffensive, to which the other group takes great offense.

Pretty simple, really. Can we move this thread to GQ now?

[Lord_Ashtar]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

So each group employs language it sees as inoffensive, to which the other group takes great offense.

You’re arguing that something which was done specifically to be offensive isn’t really offensive? Really?