tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post140654328416098322..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Why do atheists spell "God" with a little "g?" Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-22273327383003941562012-09-27T14:21:29.333-07:002012-09-27T14:21:29.333-07:00Just don't let it pee on anyone. {g}
JRPJust don't let it pee on anyone. {g}<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-47733218816886007012012-09-27T07:44:48.637-07:002012-09-27T07:44:48.637-07:00Jason: That's a good rebuttal, and you may be ...Jason: That's a good rebuttal, and you may be right. I'll keep my pet theory on a leash, but I'll also take it out for walks from time to time and let it sniff around, because I still think there may be something to it. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-1402260475740133412012-09-27T05:32:15.114-07:002012-09-27T05:32:15.114-07:00I'm just not interested in Bulverizing people,...I'm just not interested in Bulverizing people, even when they're Bulverizing us. Lewis taught me better than that. {shrug} {g}<br /><br />The gnus clearly do it to insult us; other agnostics and atheists do it for reasons that clearly have nothing to do with insulting us. (At least one non-gnu of my acquaintance does it precisely so that she won't be dishonoring God Most High by referring to Him colloquially.) Neither group has to be doing it for subconscious psychological weaknesses.<br /><br /><br />Putting it another way: any explanation of hostile usage which doesn't fit the habit of some Christians of refusing to capitalize the name/title of Satan for various reasons, is likely to be false. {g}<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-77663454316214577452012-09-26T18:36:43.334-07:002012-09-26T18:36:43.334-07:00David Marshall:
I suppose it is possible that, on...David Marshall:<br /><br />I suppose it is possible that, on some subconscious level, the atheist is drawing back from wording his condemnations precisely because he senses God is real, and like everyone else the atheist desires the ultimate good which can only be found in him. Certainly I agree that everyone has some sense of and longing for God, however deeply buried. But I think the atheist's surface antagonism is sufficient explanation. After all, many atheists do not employ such rhetorical flourishes.Southern Anglicanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08455266898847197606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-10592695618802140212012-09-26T15:28:50.089-07:002012-09-26T15:28:50.089-07:00SA: I could be wrong. I'm trying to peer bene...SA: I could be wrong. I'm trying to peer beneath the surface of things, and it is striking to me that in the act of denying God's existence, skeptics can't even bring themselves to refer accurately to him, but deny the existence of "gods" instead. I know Freud can be overplayed, but he may have had a point in this case -- including about himself. Maybe at some level, Anselm is at work on them, and they realize they can't deny God. Or maybe I'm imagining things. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-10981316563038146332012-09-26T14:28:45.782-07:002012-09-26T14:28:45.782-07:00David Marshall:
I'm not sure what you mean by...David Marshall:<br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by saying it's an acknowledgment of the truth of God. It doesn't seem to do that in any way - though it is certainly consonant with the verse to which you allude.<br /><br />There are innocent enough reasons to neglect capitalizing 'God' but in my experience, coming from combative atheists it's usually plain old blasphemy, an attempt to strip God of the honor due to him. It is at the very best a denigration not of God but of religious belief or believers.<br /><br />Regards.Southern Anglicanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08455266898847197606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-19141388990059734162012-09-26T07:27:21.817-07:002012-09-26T07:27:21.817-07:00Southern Anglican: It IS quite simple and obvious....Southern Anglican: It IS quite simple and obvious. Maybe X really is ignorant of this rule and the value of such conventions, but it passes reason that the more educated Gnus who do this could be. That it is a sneer, a petty little rhetorical act of sabatoge, is obvious, like the woman who crosses out "In God we trust" on a bill, whose blog account I just read a few minutes ago. My hypothesis is that it is also an attempt to deny the truth of God (not gods) that it simultaneously acknowledges, in the very act of "exchanging the truth of God for a lie." Any thoughts on that? David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-20420108280280720112012-09-26T06:34:46.437-07:002012-09-26T06:34:46.437-07:00XAtheistX:
Suppose we all had a conception of a s...XAtheistX:<br /><br />Suppose we all had a conception of a sort of Prime Unicorn. A greater and more perfect and more self-sufficient unicorn than any other unicorn. He is a sort of archetypal unicorn, and we call him Unicorn. Some people say he's not a person but an idea; some say he is fact and others fiction; some say he is a spirit, some say an energy, some say a state of mind. But all agree that he is a distinct, unique entity. Even if he is not a person and even if he does not exist, talking about him is not the same as talking about just any old unicorn. Since the people who usually discuss Unicorn speak English and have a modicum of education, they capitalize the name.<br /><br />Oberon is a faerie. He is also a fictional character in a play. 'Oberon' is his proper name, and it is capitalized, because in English that is what you almost always do with proper names. Whether the bearer of the name is real or fictional, in your judgment or anyone else's, is entirely beside the point. If I make up a character tomorrow named Joachim Eduardo Bebel, anyone who mentions his name in writing is, by capitalizing his name, merely observing the rules. They're not saying 'yes, I think this person actually exists.' <br /><br />I don't see how this could get any simpler.Southern Anglicanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08455266898847197606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-948467425867888752012-09-26T06:32:17.748-07:002012-09-26T06:32:17.748-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Southern Anglicanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08455266898847197606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-73552275060109466032012-09-24T18:54:50.086-07:002012-09-24T18:54:50.086-07:00I was not referring to "proper names." I...I was not referring to "proper names." I was referring to mythical beings and creatures such as faeries or dragons. I have to agree with Brain's take on the issue with the exception that I <i>do</i> mind if god is capitalized. XAtheistXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08188378589762657693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-40544376973743394772012-09-24T08:26:10.867-07:002012-09-24T08:26:10.867-07:00I think some atheists spell God with a small g bec...I think some atheists spell God with a small g because they think putting it in the capital letter confers special significance on God, and they object to that. Is God a common noun or a proper noun? You could make a reasonable case that it is a proper noun – if we spell Allah and Zeus and Shiva and so on with capitals, then I don’t object to spelling God with a capital G.<br /><br />The question is: what is God? Is God a personal God, as envisaged by Judaism, Christianity, Islam and others? Or is God an impersonal, immanent entity, such as the Universe, or Total Reality, or the Totality of all Universes etc.? If the latter, many would argue that the word “God” is superfluous – why not just use “Universe” or “World”? That depends on whether the concept of salvation makes sense even if God is impersonal – many Hindus, Spinoza and others think that the concept of salvation is rational and coherent even if God is impersonal, and so for them it still makes sense to use the word God.<br />Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-88659627288113993502012-09-23T20:08:20.328-07:002012-09-23T20:08:20.328-07:00X: Oh, I see. Your rule for grammar is, "Do ...X: Oh, I see. Your rule for grammar is, "Do not capitalize proper names when the named person is BOTH imaginary AND unimportant." <br /><br />Whereas, we should capitalize Lassie, Tinkerbell, Smaug, and Bert, as is always done by literate wriers of the English language, because while imaginary, they are more important than God? <br /><br />Your buffoonish comments (sorry, but they really are) reinforce my hypothesis. It appears that you really are refusing to use caps for God, against all grammar, logic, and English precedent, precisely to pretend to yourself that He is "unimportant," in other words to minimize Him, make him less of a psychological threat, to whistle past the graveyard, as it were. You rather directly confirm my hypothesis: so has Stanley, in the Amazon thread, in almost exactly the same way. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-62737083450091226482012-09-23T14:53:53.291-07:002012-09-23T14:53:53.291-07:00Apparently you are the one with grammar issues sin...Apparently you are the one with grammar issues since I said god is not capitalized because "they do not exist" <i>and</i> are "unimportant." What do I mean by this? Do you place much importance upon unicorns or leprechauns? How about faeries? Do you regularly capitalize these other fictional figures? If you answer "no" then you have your answer why atheists do not capitalize god. Talk about a lack of reading comprehension! Sheesh!XAtheistXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08188378589762657693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-89132717667224280742012-09-23T13:29:41.502-07:002012-09-23T13:29:41.502-07:00X: You lend support to the "atheists having p...X: You lend support to the "atheists having problems with grammar" hypothesis. <br /><br />Caps or no caps has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a person is fictional or non-fictional, important or unimportant. <br /><br />Harry Potter is capitalized. <br /><br />A dog named Lassie is capitalized.<br /><br />The dragon Smaug, the fairy Twinklebell, and the troll Bert are all capitalized. <br /><br />The "world's leading superpower" is not capitalized, despite its vastly greater importance compared to a collie, and even the fact that Lassie is fictional. <br /><br />What is rather funny, though more sad than hilarious, is that this basic rule of grammar seems to have passed you by, leaving you grasping for straws. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-29607224121417252862012-09-23T13:17:41.657-07:002012-09-23T13:17:41.657-07:00There is a very good reason why atheists spell god...There is a very good reason why atheists spell god with a little g. It is because the Christian god is like all other fictional characters. Dragons, faeries, and trolls are all characters that are not capitalized because they do not exist. They aren't important. Therefore the word god also doesn't need to be capitalized. I think its amusing how you characterized atheists who use a lower case g as doing so because they want to "diminish Him whom one fears." That's down right hilarious!XAtheistXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08188378589762657693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-42014018448983620622012-09-22T10:33:48.517-07:002012-09-22T10:33:48.517-07:00Argh, commenting again so blogger will register me...Argh, commenting again so blogger will register me for followup alerts. {rolling eyes}<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-20158158742113329982012-09-22T10:31:06.124-07:002012-09-22T10:31:06.124-07:00What's stranger is that I know people who are ...What's stranger is that I know people who are not actually hostile to the notion of theism (even being at least a little theistic themselves), nor even hostile to religious theism per se (despite not being Christian or Jewish or Muslim themselves), who have switched to using little "g" when talking in ways that normally would refer to God Most High.<br /><br />I know one such person in particular who not only ought to know better for grammatic reasons, but has degrees in archaeology and anthropology. She would never even distantly consider calling Thor "thor" even in casual conversation, or Zeus "zeus", or any of her fictionally invented deities (she's a fantasy author). As noted above, it isn't that she's inherently disrespectful in attitude to theism or to religious theisms, either: she has Christian and Jewish friends (and thinks rather highly of me not only personally but <i>as</i> a religious person).<br /><br />Now, granted, this kind of behavior is also endemic among people who are clearly doing it to be hostile. But that ought to be even more reason for people who <i>aren't</i> particularly hostile to stop doing it. Pretty much every such person I know of (herself included) who does it would be affronted for the sake of other people if their beliefs were belittled like that.<br /><br />After considering different examples of this over the past three or four years, I have decided that it's a way of socially identifying that someone is <i>only</i> using the term colloquially, not as a believer. That would explain most or all of the discrepancies involved, such as, to use 'her' as an example again, why such people seem to be fine with using the capital G <i>when seriously referring to</i> God (despite not being theists or not being religious theists).<br /><br />Gnus, and people who aren't necessarily gnus themselves but have been recently influenced by them, simply take that concept to the next stage by using the small 'g' even when talking in a non-colloquial way about the kind of deity Allah or YHWH would be--even when people merely influenced by gnus aren't trying to be actively insulting. It's a cultural tag for signaling they don't believe in God.<br /><br />Gnus per se take it to the next level again by being intentionally insulting about it, so we see things like reversing English grammatic standards in ways they expect to directly annoy theists who aren't polytheists--even though not everyone who follows the new trope or meme (for want of a better word) really intends to be insulting (although they might intend to be dismissive, but not even necessarily that).<br /><br />I kind-of think that's the answer she'd give as a folk anthropologist anyway. {g}<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-28545476620670111922012-09-22T07:16:54.189-07:002012-09-22T07:16:54.189-07:00Kilo: Thanks for confirming my hypothesis. But we...Kilo: Thanks for confirming my hypothesis. But we have standards, here. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.com