Keddaw (I cappitalized your handle): I don’t know about pink unicorn, but, definitely, Spaghetti Flying Monster should be capitalized. After all, unlike the Pink Unicorn, the latter is a real deity.

Should we capitalise the “P” in the great Pink Unicorn?

Also I cannot believe you took my post to be saying that either (1) people should not have the right to use whatever capitalisation they like or (2) that it’s worthless to do so or (3) that the subject is unimportant. To repeat the point, I was saying that to capitalise already gives the particular monotheistic religion being discussed a certain level of validity, so someone who does not grant this validity should be aware of it.

Also, nobody denigrates religious folk. They are, alas, victims of a society that has imposed upon them a system they cannot escape from. Also, perhaps, they need religion, just as a drug addict needs drugs. However, one needs to point out that what they are doing is totally irrational.

Finally, the problem is the word “belief”, which you mention. it is precisely this that needs to be criticized. Belief in the absence of any proof is stupid. Sure, people need to believe (it’s a sickness) but talking to them about the silliness of belief in absurdities, does not constitute denigrating them; likewise, talking to a sick person about the origin of their illness is not considered disrespectful.

The fact of the matter is that to use “God” in that specific sense requires capitalisation to get that point across. I suppose you could argue that when you write “god” you mean a generalised fiction, but if you are using it to mean that particular God (which I’m sure you will find most Christians, Jews etc do), I fail to see how that can be construed as incorrect. Nor that an aetheist website is wrong to describe such views using capitalisation.

In a free society people should be free to write whatever they like, and I suspect that also means to capitalise as they like, particularly on a charged subject like this. Crazy Christians aside, to deny this subject is important I this is incredibly naive, and I would also say, “disrespectful”, however much you denigrate the term. Just because divinity means little to you, does not mean it is not incredibly important to another, and I personally expect the same respect which I hold towards you and your beliefs.

For me personally, I like to capitalise “Gods”, and I do this consciously. As a fallible human I can’t say that any belief is entirely true, but I suspect that every time we use the word God or Gods through history we have been gesturing to a very particular source, even if we don’t know what it is. And it is with that particularity in mind that I capitalise God and Gods. I have no problem that you don’t capitalise, but do not tell me it is worthless to do so.

Sure, supernatural entity is a rational choice but, boy, aren’t you looking for flame when talking to religious folk? Can you imagine starting a conversation with a, Muslim, say, and refer to Allah as supernatural entity? “Entity” is a very neutral thing whereas Allah is, in the mind of Muslims, a [G]od and a male one too (even though the most sophisticated ones will have a convoluted pseudo-argument about the neutrality of God’s gender).

I’m not saying you shouldn’t do it. I often feel very cynical and, depending on the mood, I might use it too.

This emphasises the fact that there is no proof or evidence for their chosen invisible friend while being accurate enough that they can’t possibly take offence.

Then if you are choosing to argue against any specific parts of dogma you can accurately qualify it (why would an omnipotent supernatural entity do…) without invoking omniscience, omnibenevolence or omnipresence. It also leaves the discussion open to all theistic religions but is slightly long-winded.

It also allows you to use the same arguments about ghosts, fairies and Santa.