language for gods and atheists

language

Is it rude or silly to talk about invisible sky fairies? I’ve just read a comment-disabled post that takes issue with atheists attempting to ridicule Christian beliefs by using inaccurate metaphors. The author suggests:

there’s nothing obviously ridiculous about believing in a powerful, immaterial being who can effect real changes in the physical universe and is aware of its current states and transformations; but there is something obviously ridiculous in believing in a “sky-wizard.”

Of course, if I’d been able to comment, I would have felt compelled to point out that there is something ridiculous about believing in the powerful, immaterial being of your culture while not believing in the powerful, immaterial beings of every other culture. There’s something just faintly ridiculous about believing in anything in another dimension that no-one can demonstrate exists, especially when there’s a rational explanation for the urge to be drawn to any random supernatural stories. I personally think ‘sky fairy’ and ‘invisible sky wizard’ are lovely ways to view any potential deity.

But I was just wondering if, to be fair, we should accept some more colourful descriptions for rhetorical affect about atheists. Any suggestions?

Advertisements