Comment by Atheist Exile on May 4, 2012 at 2:23am

The meaning or context of the word, "God", is certainly a point of debate but it's irrelevant to English grammar.

Just saying . . .

Comment by Unseen on May 4, 2012 at 9:29am

@Atheist Exile

"In god we don't trust" would just prompt people to say, "Since you're not referring to God, which of the other gods did you have in mind."

Comment by Unseen on May 4, 2012 at 9:49am

@Heather Spoonheim

"In God we trust" is a perfect example.  Why not just say "In Jesus we trust"?  On the one hand 'God' bypasses an explicit establishment of religion, but on the other hand it specifically excludes Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism by suggesting that there is only one god, his name is God, but by English rules of grammar he's the "Christian god" which is actually at least 3 different entities.  It's an imprecise thought that is the core of the cognitive virus of Christianity.

I think it would come as a total surprise to Jews, and probably Muslims as well, to be told that the God of "In God We Trust" isn't their deity as well, since it's often said about said religions that "We all worship the same deity." He even has the same personal name in the case of Christians and Jews. I don't know about Hindus, but they tend to be syncretist and try to find truth in all religions, so I'm fairly sure most of them would find no offense.

Saying "In Jesus We Trust" WOULD be Christ-centric and offensive to Jews, Muslims, Mormons, as well as a few others, such as perhaps Jehovah's Witnesses. They believe in God, but not in a trinity. Jesus is the high priest of Jehovah and the Holy Ghost/Spirit is simply God's active force in the world. So, while we think of the sect as a band of nut jobs, they are actually a wee bit more rational than most Christians in terms of not buying the Holy Trinity.

Comment by Unseen on May 4, 2012 at 9:51am

Sorry, I can't edit or delete the prior post, but only the first paragraph should be italicized. the second two paragraphs are me, not a quote from Heather.

Comment by Jim Minion on May 4, 2012 at 10:18am

Atheist Exile  There are those that will tell you it is all about the rules, the rules must followed. It seems when it comes to this subject you fall into category. Not knowing you I have no idea much of this "rules must be followed" invades the rest of your views.

I personally don't hold with this mindset, "rules must be followed just because they are the rules".If not following the rules of grammar helps make a statement I am willing to break those rules.

Now  you say "It's no skin off of my nose. But this tripe of yours reminds me of the religious thinking of believers."  I guess it may take a little skin off of your nose.

Comment by Andrew on May 4, 2012 at 3:44pm

'God' bypasses an explicit establishment of religion, ... excludes Judaism, Islam...

-Heather Spoonheim

Congrats, that's the most ignorant thing i've heard all day! Jews and Muslims call their gods "God," although they are more specifically called Yahweh and Allah.

Also, I'm not seeing how "In God we trust" bypasses explicit establishment of religion. I'm seeing the opposite.

Comment by Pope Beanie on May 4, 2012 at 4:33pm

Misspelling it (e.g. "Gawd") might cause less Fuss, but still make the same Point?

Comment by Unseen on May 4, 2012 at 5:36pm

The trouble is that Christians almost never refer to Yahweh when they say 'God' - for the most part few of them will even acknowledge the old testament unless they are demanding that we accept the world is 6,000 years old.  When Christians say 'God' they are referring to some combination of Yahweh, Jesus, and/or the holy spirit but you can never nail them down on inconsistencies in their assertions about 'God' because the just jump from father to son to spirit to random passages from the bible that may simply quote prophets or even Paul for fuck sakes.

I demand that they name the god of whom they speak at any given point because the collage character to whom they refer is NOT an individual like Dad - hence the word god does not name anything/anyone.

And how's that working out for you?

I suspect they must feel great that their faith is getting so much attention from you.

Psych 101 tells me that such a direct approach just engenders resistance. A more stealthy approach that doesn't feel to them like a new way to prove their faith might work better.

Comment by Unseen on May 4, 2012 at 5:51pm

@Tom Holm

Putb it like this, if your writing a paper or article then yes capitalize it as it is proper grammer. But any other time, fuck it and if they don't like it then so what?

The graphic we're discussing appears to be a teaching tool. You're right, there are times to be formally correct and the rest of the time, so what? But the rest of the time doesn't leave much to discuss, so let's assume we're talking about proper English here.

Comment by Unseen on May 4, 2012 at 6:57pm

Y'all stop it now.

I like the creative use of language even when it bends grammar rules, but I don't like having to decipher lazy or careless scribblers. My gramma's far from Perfect, but Perfect is always trying to be an exclusive dog ma, and I don't mean Dog Ma, Gramma, but bitchin', right Dog?

Fictional Character Names get capitalized. Period!

Otherwise it's mickey mouse, betty crocker, visnu, and the silver surfer. And we can't have that, can we?

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Blog Posts

PI = 4

Posted by _Robert_ on September 16, 2014 at 8:53pm 5 Comments

Invictus

Posted by Marinda on September 11, 2014 at 4:08pm 0 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service