Athiests

Recently i’ve been accused of being a “church monkey, slave/servant of the church” because in a debate I chose to describe “God” as a “him” or a “he” for the sake of simplicity. For me, it’s easier to use established descriptive terms than to simply not describe a deity as a noun or giving said deity a persona, and I was called a hypocrite.

Do you feel its hypocritical of an athiest to describe a deity in any way shape or form? It makes sense, but then again it doesn’t. It’s nearly impossible to describe deity’s in the second person without using such words, but at the same time an athiest doesn’t believe any deities exist.

[quote=“TheOriginalJames, post: 317863”]Recently i’ve been accused of being a “church monkey, slave/servant of the church” because in a debate I chose to describe “God” as a “him” or a “he” for the sake of simplicity. For me, it’s easier to use established descriptive terms than to simply not describe a deity as a noun or giving said deity a persona, and I was called a hypocrite.

Do you feel its hypocritical of an athiest to describe a deity in any way shape or form? It makes sense, but then again it doesn’t. It’s nearly impossible to describe deity’s in the second person without using such words, but at the same time an athiest doesn’t believe any deities exist.[/quote]

Technically it’s a “Him” or a “He”. It’s kind of like the language debate I’ve been thinking about lately: does language really matter so long as you describe what you mean?

You were trying to convey your thoughts on a middle ground with the other person, the social perception of God, and your own personaly comfort level.

It’s not hypocritical to describe a deity in any way shape or form, because half the time us atheists are arguing with believers anyway, on forums like this one.

I dont see whats so controversial about calling something a label that someone you are trying to relate to can understand.

well, neither do I. but for this guy it turned into a 5 page debate on why I said it and how I said it. Then it spilled over into another two threads in a general ‘flaming’ area.

It was quite pathetic and everyone was agreeing with my side, which I tried explaining several times… he just refused to see it.

some people believe God can be proven by saying God and people knowing what they are talking about.

Part of his arguement was that since I didn’t believe but still used descriptions for God as a noun, that I was either lying or a church monkey… whatever that means.

Whoever said that needs to read a book.

How would you accomplish conversing with him/her if you’re banned from even…describing the subject? :unsure:

you could always pervert the idea of a God, saying that with out God we could not communicate.

its hard for people to define a God, and shows just how fragile language really is for the complexity of the universe and human thought. when we talk, how much meaning do we lose from the original thought to the words we speak?

but God as an all-benevolent all-powerful being that created the universe: not buying it.

[quote=“memento_mori, post: 317870”]you could always pervert the idea of a God, saying that with out God we could not communicate.

its hard for people to define a God, and shows just how fragile language really is for the complexity of the universe and human thought. when we talk, how much meaning do we lose from the original thought to the words we speak?

but God as an all-benevolent all-powerful being that created the universe: not buying it.[/quote]

I often think of that. Remeber back to when you were last passionate about something, even angry or enraged. Sure, you might have spoken fervently, and passionately, but DID it really retain its original meaning?

[quote=“TheOriginalJames, post: 317866”]well, neither do I. but for this guy it turned into a 5 page debate on why I said it and how I said it. Then it spilled over into another two threads in a general ‘flaming’ area.

It was quite pathetic and everyone was agreeing with my side, which I tried explaining several times… he just refused to see it.[/quote]

Just cuz the people who happened to read that thread was athiests, does not mean majority in the world agree with you.

Sounds to me like the guy was clutching at straws. Honestly its no wonder so many people cant stand religion when there are anal idiots like this in them!

You don’t understand. The fact that I do not believe had nothing to do with that, nor was it about anyone else believing/not believing.

I was trying to explain why I said what I said, how I said it. and he called me a liar.

I’ve heard the argument before, and needless to say, PLENTY of people find it objectionable.

ive thought about bringing it up in the for all the atheists… thread, but no one seems to be responding.

i guess the ultimate form of atheism is to act dumb, ask them lots of questions when they talk about this ‘God’ thing.

Just shrug 'em off James. The guy is obviously a tool. He’ll never come around, so you’re only wasting your time trying to make him see reason.

Was this a Christian telling you these things, or a fellow atheist?

I still can’t tell. With one post he’ll bash Christians, with another he’ll bash athiests.

Hmmm… Well, I guess that shows you how valuable his thoughts on you are. :smiley:

Some folks just like being the tool bag. This guy just happens to be one of those people who is good at it. :slight_smile:

FWIW, I’ve never seen you be hypocritical or illogical on your views expressed online.

Souds like he’s just on the forum to shit stir.