Question for Christian DUers

[leftofthedial]

Several posters and the DU rules state that the phrase "invisible cloud being" is offensive. I am not making any such claim here and I'm definitely not trying to start a flame fest. I'm as sick as anyone of the religious wars, but I am curious. Why is this phrase considered offensive?

A cursory search yielded several references in the Bible to God as invisible and as "riding" on the clouds.

Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

1 Timothy 1:17
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Deuteronomy 33:26
"There is no one like the God of Jeshurun, who rides on the heavens to help you and on the clouds in his majesty.

Psalm 68:4
Sing to God, sing praise to his name, extol him who rides on the clouds.

Besides, many religious works of art depict God as coming from the clouds.

I'm not aware of God being visible any time. With the above biblical references, why is the phrase "invisible cloud being" considered offensive?

[Dob Bole]

1. I don't think it's offensive

then again, I guess it could be if used in a derogatory context, just like referring to the "invisible special magic man in the sky" or something like that so as to say that Christians are intellectually challenged.

[leftofthedial]

2. it is specifically called out in the DU rules

calling God "invisible" is verboten.

I admit I've used this term with derogatory intent before, but I never understood its offensiveness.

[Cheswick2.0]

15. you just answered your own question didn't you?

you have used it in a derogatory way but don't know why it is offensive ..... is that right "honey"?

[kcordell]

22. Thank You

I was wondering that myself.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cheswick2.0]

105. you're going to have to try harder to piss me off

give it another go.

In the meantime, simply pretending you don't know you are being offensive is not very convincing. I have known plenty of 12 year olds who play that game and they didn't fool me either.

[Walt Starr]

16. Just curious, I read the rules and cannot find that statement

Where is it?

[Az]

24. The offense

is that it is a disrespectful term for an individual they believe to be deserving of the utmost respect. Imagine if someone refered to Carl Sagan as a pot smoking egomaniac. Although arguably true the clear intent is to disrespect the individual and any that associate with him. If you wish to engage in a true discussion and expect to be listened to when you present your points it is probably a good idea to treat your audience with respect and dignity even if you disagree with them. A little bit of respect goes a long way to gaining respect. Which is a necissity if you wish to convince people of anything.

[Terwilliger]

30. arguably very true

he was an individual with a self-identity that did not require someone else to allow him to fit in

Also known as independence

I and I know the ways of the righteous man, and that man has felt the hand of the Almighty

[iverglas]

82. agree as far as it goes

"The offense is that it is a disrespectful term for an individual they believe to be deserving of the utmost respect. Imagine if someone refered to Carl Sagan as a pot smoking egomaniac. Although arguably true the clear intent is to disrespect the individual and any that associate with him."

Describing someone/something, rather than calling it by the term normally used to designate it, can indeed be intended to be offensive.

Calling me "the middle-aged chain-smoking bore", accurate though that might be as a description, rather than "iverglas", the term normally used to designate me ... well, I get that.

The problem is that I *am*, and the term used to refer to me does refer to something that is. Iverglas exists. Nobody is likely to run into the problem of having to discuss me in the hypothetical, in a situation in which my existence is not common ground.

Of course, "invisible sky fairy" doesn't solve this problem either. "Middle-aged chainsmoking bore" may be an accurate description of me, but "invisible sky fairy" isn't an accurate description of anything, any more than "cheese grown on the moon" is. If it doesn't exist, there can't be an accurate description of it. So it doesn't make much more sense, really, to say "invisible sky fairy" than it makes to say "God".

I often have this problem when referring to things that allegedly exist, but whose existence I do not recognize. Things like the "right" to possess firearms, the "rights" of embryos. "Partial-birth abortion". "Compassionate conservatives".

This problem arises when I talk about ... "god". I am referring to something that does not exist, but that someone else alleges to exist, and that therefore becomes a topic of conversation and some word(s) have to be used to refer to.

I can maybe say "the deity" -- minus the quotation marks -- because that is more a matter of talking about a concept than an allegedly existent thing/personage. Sorta like I can talk about time travel without quotation marks; it's a concept, it exists as a concept.

But this "God" is a particular deity, and saying "the deity" doesn't necessarily have the accuracy that may be needed in the conversation. The allegation is that there is a specific deity with specific characteristics, which is identified, designated, by those who allege its existence by referring to it as "God" (minus the quotation marks). Of course, one can never actually know what is being referred to by someone who uses the term, since it means so many different things to so many different people, another problem with the term itself. I mean, there's only one iverglas, even though there may be varying perceptions of iverglas, but there appears to be more than one "God", many of which apparently go by that same name.

So anyhow, my solution is generally to say "god", with the quotation marks (and uncapitalized because I can't "name" something that doesn't exist ... although since I'm speaking in someone else's voice, so yeah, I suppose I maybe should follow their usage), just as I do when I talk about "compassionate conservatives".

It's a term that some use for a thing that I do not acknowledge the existence of, so I am using their term for convenience and putting the term in quotation marks to indicate that I am not speaking in my own voice when I say it, merely using the term that others employ for something that doesn't exist but that we are for some reason talking about as if it did.

After all, for me to use the term without quotation marks, in my own voice, would surely amount to taking something in vain.

;)

.

[enki23]

86. true. but...

i can't speak for anyone else, but my goal isn't always to convince someone of something. other times perhaps the ones who you'd want to convince aren't necessarily the ones being directly insulted. you can also use one statement, or idea, to advance another. "god loves you, so you should avoid sex out of wedlock out of respect for his commandments" would be an attempt to convince people who already believed in your god that they should buy your ethical argument. (or maybe to convince people who are partial your ethics that belief in god might help justify them)

[enki23]

87. true. but...

i can't speak for anyone else, but my goal isn't always to convince someone of something. other times perhaps the ones who you'd want to convince aren't necessarily the ones being directly insulted. you can also use one statement, or idea, to advance another. "god loves you, so you should avoid sex out of wedlock out of respect for his commandments" would be an attempt to convince people who already believed in your god that they should buy your ethical argument. (or maybe to convince people who are partial your ethics that belief in god might help justify them) the same can work for the other sides.

[enki23]

88. true. but...

i can't speak for anyone else, but my goal isn't always to convince someone of something. other times perhaps the ones who you'd want to convince aren't necessarily the ones being directly insulted. you can also use one statement, or idea, to advance another. "god loves you, so you should avoid sex out of wedlock out of respect for his commandments" would be an attempt to convince people who already believed in your god that they should buy your ethical argument. (or maybe to convince people who are partial your ethics that belief in god might help justify them) the same can work for the other sides.

[CoffeePlease1947]

3. Humm,

Never heard that before.

However, I guess it would be like calling your mother a "that old fat women". She may be all three but why use negative terms to describe something that is meaningful to someone?

Second, I don't regard God as an "invisable cloud being". He is not invisable, he is not from the clouds, and he is not a being. So I guess that would be the other thing that is bothersome.

Third, I think that is more vauge and takes longer to write and explain then saying God.

Mike

[baldguy]

4. It's not offensive

to anybody who has any real faith in God. Religious faith is a highly personal thing which shouldn't be affected by anyone else's opinion.

God certainly isn't offended. He's bigger than that.

[alcuno]

5. Absolutely right.

Faith in God cannot be diminished by the beliefs of another.

[Cheswick2.0]

20. no wrong

I can be offended without having my Faith diminshed. Should we allow racist posts because some one who is a minority shouldn't have their faith in themselves diminished by the N word?

[alcuno]

28. Apples and oranges

I agreed with the notion that God, as the invisible cloud being, was not offensive nor could faith in God be diminished by some else's beliefs. That is very different from being offended by a slur against God.

[Terwilliger]

42. if you're offended

then you don't have faith in your god

[Cheswick2.0]

106. not true

sorry, but can you explain how that follows? You set up the false premise.

[friendofbenn]

6. more to the point

why does du find it necessary to support censorship at all?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[prolesunited]

9. Boy

I thought liberals were much more tolerant than that. You wouldn't want to stir something up, would you? The atheists around here a able to frame much better arguments. You're also quite new here to be trying to chase other people away.

[sistersofmercy]

10. Not nice! You know kierkegaard was an existential christian. I hope

that remark was to fundamental christians.

[joycep]

11. Why are you saying something like that?

I don't understand at all.

[leftofthedial]

12. please, let's not flame Christians in this thread

I'm an atheist, but DU is a big, diverse place. Progressivism is a big, diverse place.

[Cheswick2.0]

18. hey 3 posts

and I mean that very nicely. When you display your mind I will consider your request.

[uptohere]

8. I'm a Christian. OK with me if folks say invisible cloud being

if thats the best understanding they have then who am I to argue ? Its not blasphemy in my eyes.

Have at it !

[leftofthedial]

17. My question though is, what is inaccurate about that understanding

Seems to me that God is invisible, God is in heaven (the clouds are symbolic of that), and God is a being.

What's inaccurate about the phrase?

[uptohere]

21. God is not always invisible

and there is nothing that prevents Him from taking whatever form or shape He wants. In the concept of the Holy Trinity Christ is God. Clearly Christ was visible. God spoke from a burning bush. i don't get the bush part but so what ?

If your skin is incredibly thin then you could say it was mocking Him. Like some cheezy movie depiction. And there are some very thin skinned Christians.

[patcox2]

26. Your post is an amazing mix of literalism and symbol/metaphor.

Perhaps that is the root of the problem. We are speaking in different languages. There is literal language, and there is metaphor.

In one sense all language is metaphor. The word is never the thing itself, the word is the symbol for the thing. Our brains manipulate symbols, and depending on the accuracy and precision of the symbols, the result of oyur manipulations may be able to predict or explain the reality we perceive. We call that logic.

Some of our symbols have very clear cut meanings based in experience we all share. When we use such symbols, everyone understands exactly what we mean. When I say "water" everyone who has ever been wet knows exactly what I mean. That is what we call "literal" lnaguage. But when I say "cold as a witch's tit" that would be a metaphor, that could mean different things to different people.

One of the fundamental ground rules of what we call "logic" is that it only works with literal terms, it does not work with metaphoric terms. When people ask if the bible is true I often ask if Aesops fables are true, or if Platos metaphor of the cave is true. They are meaningless questions. The logical judgment inherent in the label "true" is simply irrelevant in the context of Plato's metaphor o the cave. Its ridiculous to speak of Aesops fables that way.

So when believers, of whatever faith, speak of God, we (in most cases) understand that we are using metaphors, because the first fundamental thing about God is that he she it is bigger, greater, than we are, we cannot, with our limited perception and understanding, perceive or understand God. (does that mean he she it is "invisible'? Yes, in a simplistic way).

So we must of necessity speak of God in imperfect metaphors, necessarily flawed metaphors, because human language is limited, our ability to think is itself limited to the things within our experience, we extrapolate from what we know using metaphors of varying accuracy as we proceed farther and farther from our actual observed experience. Noone alive has actually experienced the effects of Einstein's theory of special or general relativity. Our intellectual understanding of these concepts is entirely dependant on the use of metaphors for what are largely unobservable phenomenon (sure, there have been many experiments which have observed some of the effects, but the fact that we manage to directly observe some of the effects of relativity in no way proves we are capable of perciving all of them.)

So when the Bible speaks of God as invisible, thats a metaphor, and when the Bible speaks of God in the clouds, thats a metaphor. Noone but a child or an ignoramus beleives that this means God is an invisible man (like Chevy Chase in the movie) who lives on top of the clouds that we look up at.

But that is what those people who say "you beleive in an invisible cloud man" are suggesting, in a passive aggressive way. They are purposefully taking metaphoric language and using it in a literal way in an effort to make believers look like children or ignoramuses. It is a fundamentally dishonest, and agresively demeaning means of discourse. They always deny this, of course, which is whay I say they are passive aggressive about it. But the phrase "invisible cloud man" is unequivocally a deliberate simplification and literalization of certain metaphoric expressions taken out of context and innapropriately juxtaposed.

So to some people who are attuned to language and its use and misuse, it is offensive,

Anyone who has had a child certainly has no patience witht the tactic. Bright four year old's start doing it, deliberately taking metaphoric and poetic expressions literally just to annoy their parents, and apparently some people never lose the habit.

I do wonder sometimes if the set of behaviors described as "aspergers syndrome" has a relation to this tired old tactic of deliberately taking the metaphoric literally. One of the recognized symptoms of Aspergers is a tendency to take everything literally, and to have a an angry reaction to symblic expression.

I hope thats some kind of answer. Its complicated, everything is.

[leftofthedial]

99. thanks

good explanation.

[Cheswick2.0]

13. why do you care?

If you don't understand why not just avoid the phrase? Why ask about religion at all?
Okay, in case your really want to understand, it is not the phrase but the way it is used. Ask yourself, "what is the attitude of the person using the phrase? What do they think of religion". Then you will have your answer.

[joycep]

14. I'm a Christian but I have never even thought about this.

I don't know why it would be offensive. But then I don't really try to define God. He or she is totally beyond my understanding so I could not say God is not on a cloud or invisible or whatever.

[Terwilliger]

38. you could be god, joyce

have faith

[sistersofmercy]

19. I fervantly believe in the right of freedom of religion if god is ...

an "invisible cloud being" to you then that is your right to say so. Incidentally as a former christian, I don't even acknowledge god as such.

[Az]

23. There are a number of times when god is visible in the bible

Quite a few actually(Ex 33:23 being the most interesting). This is problematic as the bible is also quite clear on the fact that no person has ever seen god either. But for the record the incidents of someone seeing god vastly outnumber the proclomations that he cannot be seen.

[ButterflyBlood]

25. i'm not offended by the term itself but

most of the time it's being used in a deraogatory manner.

[Terwilliger]

37. as it should

who brought the right-wing to power in this country?

What is the right-wing?

Atheists?

Buddhists?

Zoroastrians?

didn't think so

you have a common belief with lunatics and psychopaths that profess "love" and "brotherhood" and they dont have the first clue what it means, and you're not offended by that?

[ButterflyBlood]

39. apples to oranges

of course I'm offended by the right wing fundie nutcases, but that doesn't justify derogatory terminology against all Christians. now are you going to blame all Muslims for bin Laden or all Jews for Ariel Sharon?

[Terwilliger]

41. yes

all the ***-pods brought these people to power and prominence

when do we identify the blind faith as the main culprit in why dictators rise to power. It's usually under a religion-led campaign about how their nation must attack the evil ones.

There is no evil. That's all bullshit.

OnEdit: ***-pods

[leftofthedial]

47. Terwilliger, I think you and I agree about religion, but

this thread isn't about whether it is true, rational, right, or whatever.

It's about the perceived offensiveness of a particular phrase.

[Terwilliger]

27. I think they're referring to sky fairies

all the god-pods (OOPS! can't say god-pods...I've been censured)

[rasputin1952]

29. This may seem like simplicity at its best...

but what say we allow each other to believe however they wish.
O8)

[Terwilliger]

36. I believe that your belief is irrational

and it is a huge fallacy, and we cannot afford for rational human beings to be continually deceived in this manner

but, hey, that's what I believe...so, no problem :hi:

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

31. It's ok. Trying to describe something we can't possibly understand

I doubt comments on a message board have any bearing on the subject.

[Terwilliger]

34. oooo...can't possibly understand....ohhhh...that must be it

it can't possibly be understood! :eyes:

[bobthedrummer]

32. I retain my identity within Judeo-Christian culture on this website

but don't preach.

A lot of offensive stuff here, but it is a political website first and foremost.

Religion, politics and sex are the most emotive subjects for human beings and they are all here 24/7.

That's ok. I have become flameproof here, and it's because of the not preaching simple rules. Also some DUer's relish flame wars because of their various character flaws and cleverness. I ignore them and live to post another day. It's the single issue folks that really can get US riled up, IMHO and experiences.

If I state my belief that Jesus Christ is Messiah in this thread I will not be banned, but now some folks would like to kill me.

That's life.

[Terwilliger]

35. kill you?

isn't that a bit of a Christ complex?

[bobthedrummer]

40. NO.

I have known some folks that find my personal beliefs that offensive to their own. I won't preach though and in this thread I'm on record as to where my spiritual home is.

[Terwilliger]

44. hmm

like other religions? Muslims or Jews who don't believe in Christ?

[bobthedrummer]

45. Ba da Bing! Christian fundies too.

eom

[realFedUp]

33. OhforGodsakes...

sounds like a visual from community theater....

[leftofthedial]

48. And your point is?

Isn't the practice and promulgation of religion, by design, a form of community theater?

[ButterflyBlood]

49. since theater is fictionous

it's easy to see why that'd be perceived as offensive.

[leftofthedial]

51. I think it is accurate to portray most church services as "theatrical"

to some degree. It's not at all derogatory. Community theater is a great way to communicate to a local audience.

And theater is not always fictional.

As to offensiveness, I didn't introduce the word "theater," realFedUp did.

[Blue_Chill]

60. Who the hell cares what you think is accurate?

It's offensive and you wouldn't have a damn clue why because your not on our side of the issue. WE DECIDE what is offensive to us, you are left completely out of that decision.

By your logic I could very well decide calling you an asshole shouldn't be offensive because it may accurately describe some of your posts, does that mean it isn't offensive? Geez leftwingers are open minded on all issues except this one. Here is were this forum turns ugly, with everyone trying to justify their bias and insulting behavior.

[leftofthedial]

98. Chill, Blue_Chill

I'm not saying, nor do I mean to imply, that it is not offensive. It clearly IS offensive to some. I'm just trying to figure out why. Neither am I trying to justify the use of an offensive term.

Other than your statement that the tone in which it's used makes it offensive, the only other coherent answer I've gotten is that the phrase does not correspond to the God that some Christians believe in, for example, "God is not invisible, therefore calling Him invisible is offensive." Sorry, but I just don't understand that. "Invisible" seems like a pretty inocuous term to describe a deity.

And offensive or no, calling me an asshole would be pretty popular lately.

:)

[Blue_Chill]

102. SOteric's post

Is the best answer I have seen. BTW - I wouldn't call you an asshole, being that you are not one. You are pretty cool about this issue, you and AZ are good examples for atheists.

[lancemurdoch]

43. I prefer

I always prefer "the magic man who lives in the clouds". This was how I was taught in when I was a child and...well, that never changes.

I feel no need for apologizing for ridiculing the ridiculous beliefs of people who have ridiculous beliefs. They believe in talking snakes, people who come back from the dead, virgin births and so forth. I'm supposed to be apologetic to them? The Roman Catholic church owes ME an apology for placing me under the daily authority of a bunch of misanthropic, slightly loony nuns when I was a child. I just watched "the Magdalene Sisters" last night...things were never that bad where I was but there was certainly a great deal of familiarity. I think Madalyn Murray O'Hair said it better than I could in her Playboy interview regarding warped Catholic attitudes towards sex, specifically clerical celibacy and the "virgin birth".

I'm not really touchy-feely so I wouldn't ask for an apology...but William Donohue and his ilk are crazy if they think I'm going to keep my mouth shut about what I think of their ridiculous beliefs, as well as some of the less shining moments of the Vatican. And I don't mean middle-class liberal hangups about this or that, but some of the things done with regards to Latin American dictators and so forth. Of course, lay people, priests and even some bishops connected with liberation theology in one respect or another have done some good in this regard, but they're a small current in a mostly bankrupt institution in my opinion.

[ButterflyBlood]

46. The Catholic Church fucking sucks, no argument here

But all Christians don't agree with that horrible horrible institution. Just talk to Liberator_Rev.

[Blue_Chill]

58. Some nuns were mean to you

So the church owes you an apology? lol

Fair and balanced the way of Fox and the anti-theists.

[Blue_Chill]

52. The tone in which that phrase is used makes it offensive

but then again since when has a anti-theist on DU given a shit about what offends?

[edward]

53. I am "anti-theist" and give a shit about what offends.

That is not why I post; accusing everyone of being wrong is a way to get negative reactions.

[ButterflyBlood]

55. if you care about what offends, you're not an anti-theist

atheist and anti-theist are different things.

[Blue_Chill]

56. Exactly

Atheist I'm fine with. They have the opinion that religions are insane because there is no God.

Anti-theist however are the atheist version of Christianity's Jerry Falwell.

[edward]

85. Perhaps you are talking about "anti-christians."

An "anti-theist" would argue against the existence of a god or gods.
But this is definitional, never heard the term used before.

[ButterflyBlood]

97. it's a term used here

to described "evangelical atheists", the ones that bash Christians, proselytize, and basically just end up being the atheist equivalent of Pat Robertson.

[leftofthedial]

81. I think that's the closest thing to an answer I've seen

"The tone in which that phrase is used makes it offensive"


And you're right. any comment can be made into an insult by its tone.

I truly meant no offense starting this thread. Sorry for the harsh tone of posts on both sides.

[Blue_Chill]

95. I have no problem with this thread or your question

I thank you for caring enough to ask.

[Brian Sweat]

54. It is offensive because it points out that

people are worshipping something they have never seen nor heard.

[Blue_Chill]

57. keep telling yourself that

Whatever lets you sleep at night.....

[Brian Sweat]

59. Talk about projection.

If that isn't it, then what is it that makes it so offensive?

Have you seen your god?

Has he talked to you?

[Blue_Chill]

61. lol projection, good one

More wishful thinking from a good ol anti-theist.


What makes it offensive is it is used as a form of ridicule by bigots.

[Brian Sweat]

63. How is it ridicule?

Why didn't you answer the rest of my questions?

[Blue_Chill]

65. how is it not?

And no I didn't answer your questions because I don't plan on allowing you to make this a 'is there a god' debate. The question is simple 'is the phrase insulting' and I responded to your response on the topic.

[Brian Sweat]

67. You're the one that said it was offensive

back up your statement.


You didn't answer the other questions because you know there is know good answer.

[Blue_Chill]

71. K

It is offensive for two main reasons
1- the tone in which it is used makes it an insult
2- It reduces the concept of God to a cartoon like character.

You didn't answer the other questions because you know there is know good answer.

lol now you are going to tell me why I do or don't do something? Get over yourself.

[Brian Sweat]

73. How do you know what tone in which it is used?

How does it reduce the concept of god to a cartoon like character.

[Blue_Chill]

75. sigh

I'm not going to go around in circles with you. When you are finished playing dumb let me know.

[AntiCoup2K4]

62. I'm not offended by the words themselves...

..after all, the Bible does make it clear that no man has seen the face of God and lived. So as far as us on Earth are concerned, He is invisible. But the evidence of His existence in the complex and beautiful universe He created is good enough for me.

The only thing I find offensive are those who imply that I, and other Christians here, are somehow less intelligent, and/or less liberal than atheists who have convinced themselves that God doesn't exist. Since evolution (on the large scale, not within a species) is no more proveable than creation, then it's ridiculous to condemn one or the other as a "fairy tale" when millions sincerely believe in either theory.

[Brian Sweat]

64. Evolution is infinitely more provable than creation.

[Blue_Chill]

66. Yup

just as soon as you build that time machine. Otherwise you don't prove anything at all, you simply select the most plausible theory of those available to you.

What we can prove is animals change, but you can't prove how life started. Sorry champ.

[Brian Sweat]

68. You don't know anything about evolution.

How life started has nothing to do with evolution. I don't need a time machine to prove that evolution is real. It is happening all around us.

[Blue_Chill]

69. Are you paying attention?

I agree with evolution, I just question your ability to disprove creationism as it's beginning.

[Brian Sweat]

70. Are you paying attention?

I never said I could "disprove creationism as it's beginning"
Whatever the hell that means.

What I said was that evolution is infinitely more provable than creationism.

[Blue_Chill]

72. Creationism

is the concept that god created life. Tell me where exactly the bible states that God told someone that the life he created would never change?

The only way evolution is more provable then creationism is if you can answer how life began. You can't, you can only go with the most plausible theory based on what data we have today.

[Brian Sweat]

74. So?

[Blue_Chill]

78. so???!!!

So how about thinking about how that applies to your comment. It means creationism as is written does not deny the concept of evolution thus the only way to prove on OVER the other is to find where the two connect. They connect at the start of life on earth.

So in order for you statement to be true you have to prove that human life on this planet came from the smallest and earliest of life forms. You have the same chance of proving that I you do of proving an alien showed up and dropped off a pet and that's how we got here.

[Brian Sweat]

80. There is no evidence to support creationism.

The theory of evolution is not dependant on the creation of life.

[Blue_Chill]

90. The portion of the evolutioary theory you are talking about

has absolutely nothing to do with creationism. You are comparing apples to oranges.

[AntiCoup2K4]

77. And when did you ever see a monkey turn into a man?

Bush jokes and Planet of the Apes notwithstanding of course.

I wasn't intending to stir up an Evolution vs Creation debate here, only to point out that neither theory can be proven, as you have never seen one animal turn into another, just as I have never seen God command something to life out of dust.

For the record, I believe that Almighty God the Creator made this world and everything natural in it. How long he took to do it, and exactly what means he used to do so are irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned.

[Brian Sweat]

79. Your knowledge of evolution is non existant.

First of all, the theory of evolution and the theory of the accent of man are two different things. Second. the theory of the accent of man does not hold that man evolved from monkeys. Third, there is evidence of evolution occuring all the time.

[Blue_Chill]

91. OK then answer a question

If evolution is a completely natural event how come humans are the only creature on this planet that developed the obvious superior traits of language and logical thought? If the theory of evolution were completely understood more then simpley one creature would have adapted as we have?

Do we right this one off as luck?

[edward]

93. Yes.

Randomness does play a role.

[Blue_Chill]

94. See that would be easy to swallow

if it was some odd trait that really didn't matter. But for the one trait that gives some much advantage to be singular is rather odd. Also with the pressure humans are putting on other creatures one would think some evolution should be springing into action.

After all the reason hundreds of animals aren't extinct is because we choose not to make them so.

[Forkboy]

96. I'm on ignore to BC (whew)

but someone should point out that humans aren't the only ones with language.Nearly all animals use language.

Scientists studying whales have found that different pods use different sounds to communicate with each other,much like humans having differing languages or accents.

The trouble with arguing with people on this subject is that they usually dont even possess a grade school level of understanding about science.

[Liberal Classic]

76. I don't find that insulting at all

However, I believe the context in which it was said would have a large bearing on its insulting nature, if any. Personally, I prefer the great engineer in the sky. It's true that there are some who could find that insulting, or at least heretical.

[SOteric]

83. Any accuracy

delivered in a mocking or snide manner is offensive. When one mocks the beings that millions worship (and I do not use the term 'worship' in the same casual hyperbole that is common in American culture), one offends. Millions of good, salt-of-the-earth folk worship the god of the Jews and Christians.

I would add that Middle English translations of the original Aramaic at no point conclusively describe the trinity as "invisible cloud beings," a term which, in and of itself is condescending at best. That the Aramaic indicates God is not visible to the eye of mankind is condensed into the word 'invisible.' It loses a great deal in the translation.

Look at it from DU's point of view. Even if it's possible to say that the phrasing can be traced back to doctrine, the words themselves are too often employed as a 'smack upside the head.' So if they continue to allow posters to employ this phrase, - saying 'well, it's accurate if you read this text,' then they're giving some folks a free pass to be mocking and snide. It's too fine a line to draw and too many folks can backpedal their way out of a deserved castigation by claiming 'accuracy.'

Why not eschew trite, pre-packaged phrasing and show us all you're capable of thinking and speaking for yourselves? Say what you mean, and what you think, and take the lumps for it if you've been inarticulate, insensitive our out of line.

[leftofthedial]

100. good points

trouble is we atheists are not allowed to say what we think here.

[edward]

101. Being called "atheist" is like calling someone "non-Australian."

As if living in the United States is only meaningful in relation to Australia.
That's part of the problem.
And that the right wing is the most vocal about their "christian" needs.

[SOteric]

104. I think both Atheists

and Anti-theists (which are much like the non-theist version of a fundie) are more than amply able to give voice to their opinions. Surely you don't suggest you're not sufficiently able to articulate your thinking on any given subject without bringing up your position on dieties.

Just like it would be inappropriate for Christians or Zoroastrians or Wiccans to judge, condemn and proselitise in this forum, it is inappropriate for Atheists and Anti-Thiests to judge, condemn and seek converts to their way of thinking.

[Cheswick2.0]

107. nonsense, you are allowed to say what you think

you just aren't allowed to say it by being intentionally insulting to other people who think differently.

In any case, is there a reason you must try to convert people? Is it part of your membership responsibility?

[Skittles]

84. FIGHTING

OVER WHO HAS THE BETTER IMAGINARY FRIEND. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Mike_from_NoVa]

89. No reason to get folks riled up...

I'd like to second a notion from elsewhere in this thread. If the Christians among us find "ICB" offensive, we should be sensitive to that and not use it.

So, if the concept of a deity is troubling to you, you can always use "your deity" or "their deity" depending on the context. This removes questions of visibility and altitude and clarifies ownership all in one phrase.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[starroute]

103. I suspect this whole argument is really about anthropomorphism

I personally freely acknowledge that there is a core of irreducible mystery at the heart of existence. What is more, I will oppose with every fiber of my being any attempt to reduce that mystery to something familiar, knowable, or delimited.

I strongly distrust the word "God" because it looks to me like precisely that sort of reductionism. "God" is just a name, like "Joe" or "Mabel." Once you attach a name to irreducible mystery, you start to think you can understand it or even predict what it is going to do next.

To me, all forms of God-talk look very much like what Christians back in the old days used to call idolatry or blasphemy.

I believe that "the Tao which can be named is not the Tao."

I believe in the injunction, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!"

There are Christians who still understand these things -- but by far the majority of Christians have forgotten that the heart of their religion is mystery wrapped in mystery. They think they *know* when they do not.

What I would like to say to Christians of that sort is: Which God do you really worship? Is it the God which can be named? Is it the God met on the road? Is it the "invisible cloud being" of children's imaginings? Or is it the unnamable, unknowable ultimate mystery which is sometimes confusingly described as "God" by those who can't tell the difference?