What brings atheists to T-Web?

[JardinPrayer]

John Powell posted this in another thread. We decided it was an interesting enough topic (though one that has been discussed on T-Web before) to warrant its own thread. Since I'm relatively new to T-Web, this will be my first participation in such a discussion. I'm interested in hearing from all the Atheists out there on this one:

JOHN POWELL
Theist means someone who believes in God.

An a-theist then is someone who doesn't do that or is someone who is opposite to that.

You could think of an atheist as someone who doesn't believe in God, but you could also think of an atheist as someone who believes in not (i.e., the nonexistence of) a God. The first is merely the absence of belief in the God under discussion while the second is belief in the non-existence of that God. The first type does not deny that God exists, but the second does. Perhaps it makes more sense if you split up the word atheist.

If theist = "God believer" then a-theist means "not - God believer" or someone who does not believe in God. An athe-ist, on the other hand, could be thought of as a "not God - believer," or someone who believes there is no God.

The distinction is important because someone might merely not believe in God (be an a-theist), but be unwilling to go so far as to declare that they believe that God does not exist (be an athe-ist). The first position, also called weak atheism or negative atheism, requires less justification. The second position, also called strong atheism or positive atheism (positive as in "not negative," not as in certain), puts a heavier burden of proof on them.

Strictly speaking, all athe-ists are also a-theists because if you believe that God does not exist then to be rational it must be the case that you don't believe God exists. However, all a-theists are not athe-ists. In fact, most atheists are the weaker a-theists rather than the stronger athe-ists.

One could argue that anyone ignorant of a particular God-idea is necessarily an a-theist with respect to it.

I'm disturbed at the too large number of theists trying to define atheists away by claiming that atheist means to have certain knowledge that God does not exist or something like that which no atheist could have unless they were God!

Athe-ists, like myself, do not claim to absolutely know there is no God anymore than we absolutely know that Santa Claus, as usually described, does not exist, but we're confident enough to believe it and to declare it.

Using this definition, I would have to say that, before I was saved, I was an atheist of the weaker kind. I always believed there must be some grand entity responsible for creation and holding the universe together, but wouldn't really call it "God." I called it things like "Universal Intelligence." That sounds so utterly silly to me now.

I'm also opening this thread to a related topic, that being: What draws atheists to places like T-Web. Are they looking for proof for or against their position? Do they feel a moral obligation to convince believers of their folly? Is it something else?

Peace,
JardinPrayer

[garthoverman]

I have a few things I can add about myself.

First, I'm not your average atheist. I consider myself a pantheist, which is like spiritual atheism not unlike Buddhism. As a result, I have a highly developed interest in science, philosophy, religion and lack thereof, etc... I consider myself rather well-read and educated in those areas, and I enjoy exercising my knowledge muscles in the course of discussion/debate.

Additionally, since I am a former Christian, I find it easiest to relate to Christians. I actually had posted for almost 2 years over on CARM Discussion Forums (http://www.carm.org/boards.htm) before I ever found this one. A little dirty secret about me: I post from my desk at work. Since I just changed jobs I found that CARM is blocked by my new company's internet content filter. My desperate addiction to online debate motivated me to find this site which is NOT blocked by the content filter.

So there ya go, that's a little about why I am here at T-web. Overall, I enjoy challenging Christians to carefully scrutinize their worldview because (IMHO) a faith that isn't thoroughly evaluated is not worth believing.

Yours,
Garth

[Passant]

I called it things like "Universal Intelligence." That sounds so utterly silly to me now.

Why does that sound silly? What is the difference in that, and putting a name to that universal intelligence?

As for me, a really don't have much interest in debating Theology, it's the creationism that bothers me. I find creationism very unChristian, in fact, a leading cause of atheism!

[NSMinistries]

What brings atheists to T-Web?

Sorry have to say it.

A good spanking maybe?

End of my funny mode...

[Minnesota]

To help save the wayward from their own folly--I'm pretty damn altruistic that way :lol:

[Feet Of Clay]

One can easily explain the Christian motivation to argue (dare I say, preach?) the belief system with which it defines itself. It is in the nature of the Christian to want others to benefit from the Christian "experience." The thing that escapes me is: What is the true motivation for those who promote an "anti-God" creed? They can't truly be altruistic, because they seek not to enlighten through academic equality, but to dismantle Christianity and leave Christians without a proverbial "leg to stand on." It is in the nature of Christianity to seek, and I don't think that I speak for myself in saying that if there exists a better belief system, then I want to know about it. But the gross editorialization with which the "athiest" community consistently defines itself in its arguments shows nothing but the ignorance and the bias held by its "members." In other words, athiests do not hold the same open mind that Christians do.

John George and Laird Wilcox define the nature of an extremist group in their work, American Extremists. That definition is
1- Methods- Legitimate avenues of change?
2- Ideology- Cospiratorial? Hate-oriented?
3- Anti-Pluralism- Legitimacy? Compromise?

My point is that those who attempt to disprove Christianity do so with a fervor that is frighteningly close to that of popular extremist groups, and they consistently resort to fallacious reasoning that is reminiscent of the same. The motivation for this is certainly NOT altruism, but self-preservation, because if you can disprove my creed, then you are not required to examine yourself in light of it.

Zm

[Sher]

Today @ 05:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124738#post124738)
NSMinistries:

A good spanking maybe?

:lol:

[Minnesota]

My point is that those who attempt to disprove Christianity do so with a fervor that is frighteningly close to that of popular extremist groups, and they consistently resort to fallacious reasoning that is reminiscent of the same. The motivation for this is certainly NOT altruism, but self-preservation, because if you can disprove my creed, then you are not required to examine yourself in light of it

Oh really!

:rofl: :rofl:

[Passant]

because if you can disprove my creed, then you are not required to examine yourself in light of it.

Right back at ya!

[Feet Of Clay]

If you deny the existence of God then there is no authority against which I should examine myself. Do you see any other options?

[Minnesota]

Feet,

Depends on what you mean by "examining yourself." Sounds more like religious rhetoric than a necessary tool for living a decent life.

[Rusty T]

I think most atheists and non-theists are drawn to religious discussions because many came from religious backgrounds and are "recovering" in some way. I know that I belonged to an email support group for quiet some time called the "ex-tians". We were a group of ex-Christians who needed each other's support existing as non-Christians in a Christian society. Invariably the discussions were mostly about religion - Christianity in particular.

Another option - aside from the "recovering" factor- is that non-theist continue to discuss and debate religion because they are in fact arguing against something within themselves. There have been some scientific studies that show religious belief to be deeply ingrained in the human psyche. Whether this is genetic or environmental or God induced - many people, either through "rebellion" against nurtured belief systems, honest seeking for "truth", or for other reasons come to question this "religious" tendency within themselves.

A Christian would argue (as I do) that this ingrained religious tendency is not environmentally induced as much as it is a part of who we are as humans - created by God in such a manner. Because I was a non-theist for much of my adult life, and I have struggled with faith issues in the past, I cannot begrudge anyone who wishes to debate, argue, grapple-with what I consider to be the most pivotal questions of life. Can argumentation lead someone to change his mind? Of course. Can it lead someone to change his soul? Only the Father can do that. But it can bring a person to a place where the battle between mind and spirit is not quiet so tumultuous.

tizzi

[Satori]

As a nontheist, I'll tell you why I come here:

Because I feel that, because some of you were brainwashed as gullible children, you have had your personal liberties truncated at the deepest level. Because of this, I feel you deserve to have some common sense talked into you. Do I expect you to wake up from your respective metaphysical fantasies? Of course not, but as I see it, you at least deserve the *chance* to escape the innane dogmas which have hijacked your higher reasoning and is limiting you into a single narrow-minded perspective.

Satori

PS: I fully realize that trying to reason with those for whom reason is worthless is a futile venture, but, as a caring and ethical person, I just want to do the right thing, so I owe it to others to make the attempt. I hope you all understand, but I know that very few of you probably will. You proably think that I'm "satan" or whatever fictional anti-god character you delude yourself with, and that is just as funny as it is sad. Very, very sad.

[FirstSunday33ad]

:hrm:

but, as a caring and ethical person, I just want to do the right thing, so I owe it to others to make the attempt.

Why?

[dawnghost]

Today @ 06:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125584#post125584)
Satori:
As a nontheist, I'll tell you why I come here:

Because I feel that, because some of you were brainwashed as gullible children, you have had your personal liberties truncated at the deepest level. Because of this, I feel you deserve to have some common sense talked into you. Do I expect you to wake up from your respective metaphysical fantasies? Of course not, but as I see it, you at least deserve the *chance* to escape the innane dogmas which have hijacked your higher reasoning and is limiting you into a single narrow-minded perspective.

Satori

PS: I fully realize that trying to reason with those for whom reason is worthless is a futile venture, but, as a caring and ethical person, I just want to do the right thing, so I owe it to others to make the attempt. I hope you all understand, but I know that very few of you probably will. You proably think that I'm "satan" or whatever fictional anti-god character you delude yourself with, and that is just as funny as it is sad. Very, very sad.

He's back!

[Feet Of Clay]

Satori

Your closing statements are the embodyment of what I stated previously. Thankyou.

Zm

[Passant]

but, as a caring and ethical person, I just want to do the right thing, so I owe it to others to make the attempt. ”



"Why?"


Why not?

[$cirisme]

Today @ 11:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125584#post125584)
Satori:

As a nontheist, I'll tell you why I come here:

Because I feel that, because some of you were brainwashed as gullible children, you have had your personal liberties truncated at the deepest level. Because of this, I feel you deserve to have some common sense talked into you. Do I expect you to wake up from your respective metaphysical fantasies? Of course not, but as I see it, you at least deserve the *chance* to escape the innane dogmas which have hijacked your higher reasoning and is limiting you into a single narrow-minded perspective.

Satori

PS: I fully realize that trying to reason with those for whom reason is worthless is a futile venture, but, as a caring and ethical person, I just want to do the right thing, so I owe it to others to make the attempt. I hope you all understand, but I know that very few of you probably will. You proably think that I'm "satan" or whatever fictional anti-god character you delude yourself with, and that is just as funny as it is sad. Very, very sad.

1: What of those that came to life that were never exposed to Christianity before.(like my cousin that was baptised last April)

2: If, after we die, that's it; who cares? Eat, drink, and be happy; for tommorrow we all die.

[rocket]

Which is the belief system that best serves the one true God?

a) Hinduism
b) Wicca
c) Budhism
d) Judaism
e) None of the above

The answer to your question is none of the above. Atheists come to the TW web site for the same reason they put none of the above on multiple choice questions.

Yes Virginia, he is a genius...

[Symphony X]

06-17-2003 @ 02:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124887#post124887)
Feet Of Clay:
on." It is in the nature of Christianity to seek,


Ummm, it was my nature to seek that led me away from Christianity and towards atheism. I wanted to know what the truth was...no matter what my emotions or wishful thinking wanted otherwise. There was too much evidence staring me in the face that Christianity didn't have a leg to stand on.


"members." In other words, athiests do not hold the same open mind that Christians do.


This is complete B.S. It was my open mind....a mind willing to ask questions about everything that was taught to me....that led me away from Christianity and towards atheism (eventually...I progressed from Christianity to a general theism to deism to agnosticism to atheism.)


Ideology- Cospiratorial?


Oh, yes, I am part of some evil atheist conspiracy.


Hate-oriented?


Ummm, one of my best friends is Christian. I also have a good friend who is gay. I champion the rights of minorities. Is that hate-oriented?


of popular extremist groups, and they consistently resort to fallacious reasoning


Fallacious reasoning? I read the best arguments by the best Christian apologists, and I read the best arguments by the best atheists, and compared them, and I found the reasoning of the Christian apologists to be fallacious.

[usarmy770]

I was raised in a fundamentalist Jewish community, you know the type - curls, beards, black hats and coats... I was brought up studying religion 14 hours a day and not once did we study about what God is or even whether or not there is a God. I began to ask those questions when I was about 13 years old and could not get the answers from within the community. I began sneaking off to the public library to read and was able to absorb information and points of view that were different than those with which I had been raised. Yes, I had to sneak, my mom would not let me go to the friggin' library. I stopped believing in a God of any type. However, I still find theology to be fascinating and study the subject in earnest. I don't take anything as truth unless it's based in proven facts and shown to me using scientific method.

Here is how I classify myself,

Race: Caucasian
Skin Color: White
Nationality: American
Culture: Jewish
Religion: Athe-ist
Job: Soldier
Occupation: Theologian

[AtheistArchon]

- Hehe, Jardin has 666 posts.

[Barron]

06-16-2003 @ 11:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124581#post124581)
JardinPrayer:

I'm also opening this thread to a related topic, that being: What draws atheists to places like T-Web. Are they looking for proof for or against their position? Do they feel a moral obligation to convince believers of their folly? Is it something else?

I consider myself an atheist apologist in the classical meaning of the phrase. That is, I am here to explain and defend my beliefs. I don't think other people should agree with me, and I wouldn't have a clue how to convert someone to atheism. Mostly I want to disabuse people of misconceptions and stereotypes about atheists. I want to give believers a real, live, polite atheist to talk to. Sadly there seem to be a fair number of less polite atheists on this board, so I also want to say, "we aren't all annoying, honest!"

I also have serious problems with bad and pseudo science. I love science and I hate to see it abused, misunderstood or misused. So I tend to get into discussions that involve science and scientific data. That means I tend to butt heads with creationists and anyone who wants to use science as proof of their particular faith. Nothing against faith, but science is basically faith neutral. Unless the faith makes a testable claim, science as nothing to say pro or con. BTW, this also means I oppose people who say "science proves your God doesn't exist". Outside of a claim from the believer, science says no such thing.

So, that's a long answer to a simple question...

Barron

[Nowhere357]

Feet Of Clay:
The thing that escapes me is: What is the true motivation for those who promote an "anti-God" creed? They can't truly be altruistic, because they seek not to enlighten through academic equality, but to dismantle Christianity and leave Christians without a proverbial "leg to stand on."

Do you see atheism as "anti-God"? That's not what it is at all, although of course some atheists may be that way.

They can't truly be altruistic, because they seek not to enlighten through academic equality, but to dismantle Christianity and leave Christians without a proverbial "leg to stand on."
You are referring to a minority, I hope you are aware of that. Although it turns out that striving for the former often leads to the latter, due to the fact that Christianity is based on primitive supernatural mythology. But that's not the atheist's fault!

It is in the nature of Christianity to seek,
I admit I haven't seen much evidence of this. The opposite, in fact.

and I don't think that I speak for myself in saying that if there exists a better belief system, then I want to know about it.
Absolutely. Although how would you define "better"? Bhuddism, for example, captures all of the good teachings of Christianity without resorting to the supernatural and without fostering hatred and intolerance.

But the gross editorialization with which the "athiest" community consistently defines itself in its arguments shows nothing but the ignorance and the bias held by its "members."
Whoops, you lost me. In fact, you are exactly backwards, which seems odd after your earlier declarations. Atheists as a group have little interest in treating mythology as fact, and of course atheists are human and includes the jerks etc. But, as a group, they are by far the most enlightened, non-bigoted, educated, creative, far-seeing bunch of people I've ever talked with. Maybe you should visit the Secular Web.

In other words, athiests do not hold the same open mind that Christians do.
True. They usually don't let their brains fall out, while many Christians don't let factual knowledge in. Definitly not the same open mind.

My point is that those who attempt to disprove Christianity do so with a fervor that is frighteningly close to that of popular extremist groups, and they consistently resort to fallacious reasoning that is reminiscent of the same.
Maybe some do, but no fallacious reasoning is necessary to debunk the Christian mythology, so I wonder why you feel the need to attack the militant minority, when there are plenty of mainstream atheists available to explain the errors in theistic logic.

The motivation for this is certainly NOT altruism, but self-preservation, because if you can disprove my creed, then you are not required to examine yourself in light of it.
Again, mainstream atheism revels in self-examination, so one wonders why you need to focus on the nuts? Maybe it's YOUR creed that doesn't bear close examination?

John George and Laird Wilcox define the nature of an extremist group in their work, American Extremists. That definition is
Ooh, probably not a good idea. Let's see:

1- Methods- Legitimate avenues of change?
Christians have many movements to increase their ability to indoctrinate citizens, from prayer in schools to political lobbies trying force our nation's laws to reflect Christian theology. They have a terrible history of forcing their views on others, far too often using violence.
Atheists do not.

2- Ideology- Cospiratorial? Hate-oriented?
Christian theology sends all non-believers to hell, and supports intolerance to any view other than their own. They also condemn normal behaviors, and have a history of suppressing the advancement of science when they don't like the findings.
Atheists do not.

3- Anti-Pluralism- Legitimacy? Compromise?
Christians strive to make everyone believe as they do - that's part of their creed.
Atheists include everyone who don't believe in supernatural deities - including Bhuddists, Wiccans, Pantheists, etc. etc.

So I would say you've taken the wrong approach. Christianity as a whole is far more extremest then atheism. No contest.

I think there are atheists on this board who could rip your claims to shreds, before they finish their coffee. Probably they find your position to pathetic to even bother.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Here's why I post in this forum: I oppose tyranny and injustice, and frankly, Christianity reeks of it. I despise the tactic of proclaiming "truth" while advocating belief in myth. And then those who doubt are told that they have "chosen" hell. Good grief.

[usarmy770]

[/quote]Here's why I post in this forum: I oppose tyranny and injustice, and frankly, Christianity reeks of it. I despise the tactic of proclaiming "truth" while advocating belief in myth. And then those who doubt are told that they have "chosen" hell. Good grief.[/quote]

I have to agree with you on that one. You're absolutely right. Though I have to say, as a new member, that the majority of christians on this forum are not like that.

[Satori]

06-18-2003 @ 12:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125889#post125889)
cirisme:
[list]1: What of those that came to life that were never exposed to Christianity before.(like my cousin that was baptised last April)

Really? Your cousin was never exposed to christanity before? Then I assume that your cousin must of grown up in some part of Asia or India where the monotheistic idea of an angry, demanding, judgemental, and sadistic god is unheard of. I also assume your cousin was raised by parents who were either staunch atheists or nontheists, and never got any notions of a watchful god thing from them either. I also assume that your cousin never celebrated christmas or was exposed to all those "christian derived/justified/explained values" which are part of western society.

Is that the case? If not, then how can you make the claim that he had no exposure to this religion?

Besides, I didn't say that everyone who gets sucked in by these types of religions necessarily had exposure to the base concepts in their formative years, but that is precisely the case in the vast majority of believers. There are always exceptions however, just like there will likely always be adults who get sucked in by various whacky cults. Many people are easily mislead, especially when the right promises and right threats are imposed on their minds in the proper way.

2: If, after we die, that's it; who cares? Eat, drink, and be happy; for tommorrow we all die.

Personally, I think people deserve the chance to decide their metaphyiscal alliances for themselves, or free to not decide and remain open-minded, free of the blatant psychological coercion (punishment/reward) which is employed by organized religions to win and keep members. I also think everyone has the right to live free from the fear of the inhumane wrath of some invisible god who won't even show itself.

I care about people, very very deeply, it's just who I am. I was once self-deluded too, having attended catholic school and all, and I was helped to overcome this brainwashing by others who cared enough about me to help me. Now I feel it's my responsibility to try to help free others of this psychological prison as well, it's my way of giving back, and I just want to do what I honestly think is the right thing. So far I've helped more "undecided but previously brainwashed" people than I can even count, and even a handful of people who were hardcore believers. Helping others open their minds and stop being so concerned, guilty, and afraid all the time is a great feeling, a good deed which I feel is truly it's own reward.

in reason,

Satori

[ChrisChillin]

usarmy770:

Here's why I post in this forum: I oppose tyranny and injustice, and frankly, Christianity reeks of it. I despise the tactic of proclaiming "truth" while advocating belief in myth. And then those who doubt are told that they have "chosen" hell. Good grief.

I have to agree with you on that one. You're absolutely right. Though I have to say, as a new member, that the majority of christians on this forum are not like that.

In need of clarification - are you agreeing with everything that statement entails? Does Christianity reek of tyranny and injustice? I very well say that it is my Christianity that directs me to oppose tyranny and injustice wherever it may be found, and that includes inside the visible church. Is there any statistical study to show that Christianity has resulted in more bad than good, or vice versa? Injustices done in the name of Christ are indeed very bad, but such statements keep begging the question, are they reflective of Christian theology at all? For more consideration on this topic, I suggest the book Christianity on Trial by Vincent Carroll and David Shiflett (Encounter Books, 2002) for a historical analysis of such claims.

The face of real Christianity is the justice and love of people like Clarence Jordan, who started an interracial farming community in the American South in the 1940s. Does that reek of injustice and tyranny?

But I'm digressing...the thread isn't about all that. (Gets off soapbox) :clown:

If the majority of Christians on this forum don't fit that characterization, then take the logical leap - that the majority of Christians are not the kind of people who cause skeptics to generate such statements. Just the vocal fundies who get all the news as they twist scriptural teachings.

Anywho, welcome to TWeb, buddy! Slap me some skin, bro! :highfive:

[PRAISE]

06-16-2003 @ 10:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124738#post124738)
NSMinistries:



Sorry have to say it.

A good spanking maybe?

End of my funny mode...

:lol: :lol: Seriously though, I think that it is that atheists are trying to prove their own belief. Not that I mind though! Gives me the opurtunity to put my trust in the Lord even more to answer some of their questions! God Bless, NS! :chat:

PRAISE:thumb:

[usarmy770]

In need of clarification - are you agreeing with everything that statement entails? Does Christianity reek of tyranny and injustice? I very well say that it is my Christianity that directs me to oppose tyranny and injustice wherever it may be found, and that includes inside the visible church. Is there any statistical study to show that Christianity has resulted in more bad than good, or vice versa? Injustices done in the name of Christ are indeed very bad, but such statements keep begging the question, are they reflective of Christian theology at all? For more consideration on this topic, I suggest the book Christianity on Trial by Vincent Carroll and David Shiflett (Encounter Books, 2002) for a historical analysis of such claims.

I agree with you that Christianity as expressed by the vocal fundamentalists reeks of tyranny and injustice. I realize that Christianity has done alot of good, but the evil perpetrated in the name of Jesus Christ far outweighs the good.


Anywho, welcome to TWeb, buddy! Slap me some skin, bro! :highfive:

^5 :highfive:

[BeHereNow]

I post on T-Web because I love debate. It gives me a chance to read what others think, and to test out my own arguments against educated people. I've always enjoyed good debate, and I find a collection of witty and well-read people here at T-Web.

I initially found this web site on tektonics.org when I was reading JP Holding's challenge to skeptics. I was a Christian for years, and now I'm not. But I reject the notion that I don't believe in God, or that I am running from God. Rather, I reject the legalism and boundaries that religion subjects God to. I think it is incredibly naive to think that one can place finite definitions on something as infinitely unknowable as God. The Bible came close to describing God on a few occasions, but for the most part the writers really have a distorted view.

I have found it to be true that God reveals itself to you when you are ready. Once I stopped seeking the answers, the answers found me. I've since consorted with many people who have taken the same path to the same answers.

I believe in God. I just don't define it the way you do (I don't see god as a sentient entity with human characteristics). I'm not an atheist, and I think the Jesus fishes (and the ones with feet) are stupid.

:yipee:

[C. D. Ward]

Nah, couldn't be! :grin:

Seriously, I'm here because I enjoy the give and take of a good discussion.

C. D. Ward

[John Powell]

JARDINPRAYER:
I'm also opening this thread to a related topic, that being: What draws atheists to places like T-Web. Are they looking for proof for or against their position? Do they feel a moral obligation to convince believers of their folly? Is it something else?


POWELL:
I just noticed this thread.

I came to TWEB at the suggestion of someone at II_Errancy who said that he and some others there believed that I had the necessary patience to defend atheism with those here. I stayed because I found so much to like.

I am still seeking truth. I believe atheism is true, but I want to know how strong the arguments are for and against it and what arguments are most persuasive. There is a human drive to help others of their kind and to defend one's beliefs, even the false ones.

John Powell

[Warcraft3]

I initially found this site through a tektonics link and posted something not really expecting to stick around this long.

What keeps me here is the people. There are several atheists and Christians here that impress me with both their arguments and attitude. I like people who have strong beliefs, are intelligent, make good arguments, and can debate without acting like a complete jerk. I find many people here who have all of those characteristics. So thats what keeps me here.

Sometimes when I am debating with someone I have to laugh, because many of you remind me of close friends I also debate with. So I guess its really the people that keep me posting.


Russ

[Bob Jenkins]

I came here to bring the irrational to rationality from my own perspective. That is not possible with an educated Christian. I concede the arguement and debate beacuse faith and rationality are two different starting points not that either is right or wrong. It is as foolish for me to argue rationality to Christians as it is for them to try to instill faith in me.

Consequently, I rarely go into Apologetics 301 any more.

However, I still have arguement to present in Pol Sci where it seems to me that faith impinges on my life.

But the "best-est" reason for staying is the comradeship all can share - we can have fun, make fun of each other, and support one another without getting into "unwinable" debate.

[Aristotle]

I am not atheist but I am not a theist. I am a special breed of skipticism known as Agnostic! I wanted to come here because I need some sort of intellectual stimulation. My life is pretty deprived of "educated debates/discussion". I think I am the first ever in my families history to break away from the Christian following so most of the time family members try to turn me back to christianity. Yet, consistently, they make arguments that are completely nonsense and even contradict what they believe. Just recently a girl I like got into a religious discussion with me. She kept begging the question on so much of what she argued....and she is really cool and into philosophy and such too. I felt kinda bad for her cause she said she was gonna go home and study up on her stuff. It seemed to imply she wasn't sure what she knew (she couldn't even tell me what grace is :( ).

I was christian for a long time and was even introduced to some of the wackier aspects of christianity (pentecostal/charismatic). I had had questions about the religion since I was in elementary school. I could not read the bible without becoming so plagued over some inconsistency or philosophical conundrum. Everyone told me that I shouldn't think such things. So I stopped reading the Bible lol. In twelth grade I was introduced to Philosophy and have been agnostic since then. Not really much proof in my opinion to make a decision. I take Socrates motto on knowledge - "The only thing I know is that I know nothing."

The way I have noticed Chrisitanity to function is to believe in faith and everything you are told will be true. If you have faith that God is good then you do not need to question why evil exists. If you have faith that God has a plan, you dont have to know everything because there are things we aren't supposed to know yet. The reasoning is extremely circular and not well constructed. After all, why not question whether it is right to claim people are possessed by demons when they do not act normal? Why is it ok just to accept the Bible as true (because the Bible says that the Bible is true -_-)? Is it even right to have faith in such a way that it is more then just a temporary coping method used for everyday life? If man does not know what is right or wrong, how can we know that it is right to persue God(s)?

--------- Bhuddism, for example, captures all of the good teachings of Christianity without resorting to the supernatural and without fostering hatred and intolerance ------------

Ummmm.......Bhuddism doesn't capture all the good teachings of Christianity. As I recall, bhuddism has been around longer then Christianity has......especially since Buddha lived in about 500 B.C.E. Honestly, if you read some of Buddha's teachings, his analogies and stories are very similar to what Jesus says 400 years later.

I think the reason whyso many Atheist/Agnostics/Skepticists hold bitterness to religion is because usually at some point they were apart of the religion. When they finally started thinking on their own rather then having others think for them, they felt deceived. I too share the frustration with them for this very reason.

Wheeee! A purple freckled Pumpkin!

[flipper]

The food, mostly. I do so love cream cheese wontons.

[John Powell]

ARISTOTLE:
I am not atheist but I am not a theist. I am a special breed of skipticism known as Agnostic!


POWELL:
Welcome to TWEB! :cheers:

Do you believe in God Aristotle? If the answer is yes then you're a theist. If the answer is no then you're an atheist. A theist is someone who believes in God. An atheist is someone who doesn't. Agnosticism is about certain knowledge, not belief.

There are weak atheists or a-theists (not- God believer) who merely don't believe in God, but aren't willing to deny that God exists and there are strong atheists or athe-ists (not God - believer) who deny that God exists. An agnostic is someone who doesn't know for sure, but that could apply to either theists or atheists. An agnostic theist would be someone who believes in God, but isn't absolutely sure God exists. An agnostic atheist would be someone who does not believe in God, but isn't absolutely sure that God does not exist.

At least that's how I think the terms should be defined.

John Powell
An athe-ist or strong atheist.

[Aristotle]

An Agnostic is someone who either hasn't made a decision to become atheist or theist or refuses to make a decision on the subject for various reasons. I am the latter and refuse to decide based on lack of evidence in both atheism and theism. I consider Agnosticism an extreme form of skepticism. I question everything and basically use whatever works (haha, skepticism with a hint of pragmatism....mmmm......yummy...).

Thx for the welcome! Now where is the Newcomers' buffet?

[Gilgaron]

Hey Powell,
have you posted anywhere regarding how you came to the strong atheist position? I am curious, and offhand I can't think of the premises involved in coming to that position.

Aristotle,
I've been enjoying myself here so far, so I think you ought to as well. I think you ought to look over Powell's definitions once more. I think "lack of evidence" ends up placing one in the weak atheist category, in most cases. It's pretty much where I am, personally.

[JardinPrayer]

Hey guys, thanks for breathing new life into this thread. I started it back in June, forgot to bookmark it, and never read any of the posts until today!!! Your responses are exactly what I was hoping for.

Welcome Aristotle! I think you'll find what you're looking for here. Including the buffet!

Flipper...who's hiding the cream cheese wontons? I didn't know we had those. (PM me the recipe!)

A large part of me wants to speak to those of you who left Christianity or never subscribed to it. But, I think that's another thread (or several other threads...and one(s) that are all over TWeb). I would like to return the courtesy, though, and tell you about my own journey.

My mother's parents were a Lutheran mom and Jewish dad, both non-practicing. They raised my mom with no religious influence at all. My dad was raised Roman Catholic and abandoned it at 18. When my parents married and started their family, they decided it would be silly to pick a religion out of a hat and send us to church just because everyone went to church in those days. They opted to teach us right from wrong and provide a good example and allow us to choose our spiritual paths for ourselves.

In elementary school, when classmates would ask me what my religion was, if I said, "I don't have one," the response was always incredulous: "What do you mean you don't have one? You have to have one." So, I would just say "Lutheran," to shut them up, having no idea what that meant.

My upbringing rarely brought me in contact with religion beyond that which is unavoidably prevelant in our culture (Christmas images, popular bible stories, etc.) It wasn't until late in my high school years that I started to encounter "Jesus Freaks," as they were called in the late '70s. I thought they had something in their demeanor that was intriguing, so I would ask them a lot of questions about their belief, but didn't feel the need to become part of the club...just wanted the details.

Five years ago, at the age of 39, God spoke to me in the still, small voice, unsolicited, unexpected, and unmistakeably. In a heartbeat, I understood the statement, "Faith is a gift from God." It comes only from Him and cannot be found by recruitment, research, threats of damnation, or any other "natural" means. It is a spiritual experience that transcends the tidy resoning and applied logic atheists and skeptics employ. That's not a slur...it's an observation from someone who made the journey from one to the other. The word "awakening," seems particularly relevant, too. From there, study, fellowship, and pastoral guidance helps the new Christian develop. You learn (and it can be a struggle and take a long time) to resolve those issues about contradiction and confusion and conformation to earthly rules. That may sound like brainwashing, but it's really another transcendence...understanding the ways of God ("For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are My ways your ways").

I am ever grateful to God for the gift of faith, and His praise shall continually be in my mouth. The things that happen once you surrender yourself to unmitigated faith bring with them so much joy and peace, I find myself wishing those who have not experienced it could simply let go their hold on those things which prevent them from crossing the threshold and find out they won't get swept away by a tornado of nonsense. I'm not a recovering alcoholic or drug addict, wasn't sexually abused, didn't have any of the traumatic experiences so many seem to "find God," through. I'm not compensating for anything or hiding behind anything. God just spoke to me when He was ready to call me to service and that was by rebirth.

More from the rest of you would be terrific. Where's Alien? He's in a great place in his spiritual journey...I'd love to see him post here.

* Bookmarking this thread right now.

[flipper]

Jardin:

You only get them if you're an atheist, I'm afraid. It's a sort of consolation prize.

[Spiritus Naturae]

:bunny:

One reason is that lil' bunny up there...

I used to be involved in various Eastern/Asian philosophies and religions, the one I settled upon is known as Western Sikhism (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10658) A little over 3 years ago I returned to the faith I had known as a child and the faith that had saved my father from a life of debauchery, Christianity.

I agree with those who say that one must really understand what it is that they claim to be, so far as belief is concerned. If I am a Christian I should definetely know what the basics of my faith are and then build up to the more intricate aspects and doctrines ( Eschatology, Hermenuetics etc.) . This just seems like common sense to me. If I believe something just because someone tells me I should than it is not a real faith. One believes because they know inwardly that this thing is the truth, even observing it to be the truth in their everyday life. I came to TWeb because I got tired of Beliefnet and the rather bland debates and find that here there are intelligent people running the forums and debating on the threads, people who think for themselves and know why they believe what they believe...from the Jainist to the Atheist to the Christian and all those in between and on the sidelines of belief and ideology.

Me likey...alot! :yipee:

[JardinPrayer]

flipper:
You only get them if you're an atheist, I'm afraid. It's a sort of consolation prize.

Well, you could still PM me the recipe! I could make them....for atheists. Yeah, that's the ticket.

SpiritusNaturae:
If I believe something just because someone tells me I should than it is not a real faith. One believes because they know inwardly that this thing is the truth, even observing it to be the truth in their everyday life.
No one has ever told me what to believe, spiritually speaking. I consider myself extremely fortunate that I was not raised with a religious doctrine that would become a crutch or stumbling block when I was old enough to find my spiritual path. I was a blank slate, ready for God's chalk. Hallelujah. And, "here, here," on the knowing it's truth comment. That's really how I govern myself most of the time. The only caveat to that would be that one must be sound of mind in order to perceive real truth. Some criminally insane people believe what they are doing is being demanded of them by God (or their neighbor's dog, or demons, or aliens). Still, I'm fairly confident in the soundess of my mind as well as the presence of the Holy Spirit dwelling within me, ordering my steps, and giving me good judgement when I listen closely enough.

I came to TWeb because ... here there are intelligent people running the forums and debating on the threads, people who think for themselves and know why they believe what they believe...from the Jainist to the Atheist to the Christian and all those in between and on the sidelines of belief and ideology.
So well said!

[Alien]

Where's Alien?

Hello? Someone call? Oh .... Hi Lynn.

Why did I come here?

I used to post on an atheist usergroup. My motivations were similar to those of some of the previous posters .... I enjoy a good discussion. I was getting a little bored with reading the same arguments about the same subjects over and over when a Christian friend recommended Tweb, and I came here and haven't gone back.

Why? Well, it's a pleasant change to be in a minority. I get a better understanding of the Christian mindset when I'm on their 'home territory". In fact a secondary motivation of mine has always been to understand Christians better. (Don't be offended guys .... I was always fascinated by the apparent contradiction of seeing people whose intellect I respected adhering to beliefs that I considered illogical. I've asked "Why do you believe that? What evidence do you have? How did you come to that position?" more times than I care to remember.)

I've also learned a lot about Christianity itself since coming here. I used to think I had a fair understanding of it. But .... Calvinism, Molinism, Preterism, .... all new stuff!

I've never tried to convert Christians to atheism or anything else. Quite frankly, I wouldn't want the responsibility.

My parents were perhaps best described by one of my favorite invented words - "apatheists". They paid lip service to Christianity, but never went to church themselves or tried to teach me anything about it. So I didn't have any childhood "indoctrination" or any religious framework to "rebel" against. I guess that explains why I've never felt anger towards Christianity or Christians (in general at least).

Oddly, I don't participate in discussions much any more. This is partly because I'm not totally sure which side I'm on these days (yes, that "spiritual journey" Jardin alluded to) and partly because I don't feel like arguing as much as I used to (so there!).

I do enjoy the friendship that I receive from some of you. This is most unusual in a forum that is formally dedicated to discussion.

So that's me. :smile:

[Alien]

Some criminally insane people believe what they are doing is being demanded of them by God (or their neighbor's dog, or demons, or aliens).

Hey! Don't blame me for it! (Or my dogs!)

:teeth:

[JardinPrayer]

Thanks, Tony! Good to see you here.

[Warcraft3]

Hey there Alien:

Oddly, I don't participate in discussions much any more. This is partly because I'm not totally sure which side I'm on these days (yes, that "spiritual journey" Jardin alluded to) and partly because I don't feel like arguing as much as I used to (so there!).

I do enjoy the friendship that I receive from some of you. This is most unusual in a forum that is formally dedicated to discussion.

So that's me. :smile:
I really liked your post Alien...especially that last part.

Have some pearls.



Russ

[JardinPrayer]

Awright! Pearls for Alien!

[Aristotle]

I am agnostic. There are such things as us. Not all of us are atheist or theist. Us agnostics are the in betweens. Like a glass filled with enough water to take up 50% of the glasses volume, the amount is in between being neither full nor empty. It's fuzzy logic! Just because I think there is a "lack of evidence" doesn't make me any more atheist or theist. When a person is brought to court and there is not enough evidence to show that this person committed the crime, it doesn't mean the person is truly innocent or guilty of the crime! That's why a person is "innocent" until proven guilty.....or in France "Guilty until proven innocent."

----- In a heartbeat, I understood the statement, "Faith is a gift from God." -------

Can you describe to me what "faith" is so I can make sure we don't have different ideas on it? I beg to differ on this statement.

OMGosh.....this is the bestest smiley ever! :lolo:

[JardinPrayer]

Today @ 10:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=220164#post220164)
Aristotle:

I am agnostic. There are such things as us. Not all of us are atheist or theist.
I agree with this statement, but not:

Like a glass filled with enough water to take up 50% of the glasses volume, the amount is in between being neither full nor empty. It's fuzzy logic!
There's nothing fuzzy about that to me!

When a person is brought to court and there is not enough evidence to show that this person committed the crime, it doesn't mean the person is truly innocent or guilty of the crime! That's why a person is "innocent" until proven guilty.....or in France "Guilty until proven innocent."
That would make the person innocent until they are guilty. Not in between...not fuzzy. That is like saying you are a theist until you cease believing and then you are atheist. So, you've defeated your own logic here, though I agree with your original statement.

Can you describe to me what "faith" is so I can make sure we don't have different ideas on it?
Faith was given to me by God in a moment. For my entire life, I was uncertain (agnostic) of His existence, of Jesus' divinity, or even the need to seek the truth about it. In the moment He spoke to me in the still, small voice, I knew (and I mean KNEW), that He was there, that Jesus was exactly who He said He was, and that my life belonged to Him. It was like an infusion. It has endured and I have been transformed by it.

I beg to differ on this statement.
The statement that faith is a gift from God?
Ephesians 2: 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

If it was something else you differed with, please clarify.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Aristotle, what are your definitions for the following terms?

theist, atheist, agnostic, gnostic?

Thanks.

Here are my definitions relevant to the question of God's existence. For the sake of specificity let's assume "God" refers to any of the popular Gods of modern times (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.)

1. Theist: a person who believes that God exists.

2. Atheist: a person who does not believe that God exists.

3. Weak Atheist: a person who does not believe that God exists, but does not go so far as to believe that God does not exist (i.e., to deny that God exists).

4. Strong Atheist: a person who not only does not believe that God exists, but believes that God does not exist, one who denies that God exists.

5. Agnostic: A person who does not know for sure whether God exists.

6. Gnostic: A person who knows for sure whether God exists.

7. Gnostic Theist: A person who knows and believes that God exists.

8. Gnostic Atheist: A person who knows and believes that God does not exist.

9. Agnostic Theist: A person who believes that God exists, but doesn't know for sure that God exists.

10. Agnostic Atheist: A person who does not believe that God exists, but doesn't know for sure that God does not exist.

If you aren't a theist, Aristotle, but you won't outright deny that God exists, and you aren't sure whether God exists, then I would define you as an agnostic weak atheist.

Next question to test your internal consistency:

Which statement below best represents your knowledge and belief about the existence of Santa Claus as usually taught (magical elves, flying reindeer, living at the north pole)?

11. I believe that Santa Claus exists. (Santaist)

12. I don't believe that Santa Claus exists. (ASantaist)

13. I don't believe that Santa Claus exists, but I don't go so far as to believe that Santa Claus does not exist (i.e., I don't deny that Santa Claus exists). (Weak ASantaist)

14. I not only don't believe that Santa Claus exists, but I believe that Santa Claus does not exist. I deny that Santa Claus exists. (Strong ASantaist)

15. I don't know for sure whether Santa Claus exists. (Agnostic)

16. I know for sure whether Santa Claus exists. (Gnostic)

17. I know and believe that Santa Claus exists. (Gnostic Santaist)

18. I know and believe that Santa Claus does not exist. (Gnostic ASantaist).

19. I believe that Santa Claus exists, but I don't know for sure that Santa Claus exists. (Agnostic Santaist).

20. I don't believe that Santa Claus exists, but I don't know for sure that Santa Claus does not exist. (Agnostic ASantaist).

Thanks.

John Powell

[JardinPrayer]

John Powell:

Is that your own breakdown (as you suggest above) or are there formal definitions you are working from? I've seen you post portions of this before. You do seem very interested in putting people into their appropriate categories, so I'm just wondering if you are drawing the lines for your own comfort or if these descriptions as you've presented them are "official" in any way.

For myself, I'm not a label fan. But, since you bring this up so often, I'd like to understand where you're coming from a bit better.

[John Powell]

JardinPrayer:
John Powell, Is that your own breakdown (as you suggest above) or are there formal definitions you are working from?


POWELL:
They are my own breakdown based upon the etymology of the words theism and gnosticism.

JARDINPRAYER:
I've seen you post portions of this before. You do seem very interested in putting people into their appropriate categories, so I'm just wondering if you are drawing the lines for your own comfort or if these descriptions as you've presented them are "official" in any way.


POWELL:
They are not official, but I believe they make more sense than others being promoted.

JARDINPRAYER:
For myself, I'm not a label fan.


POWELL:
Ridiculous. You have to label people to effectively deal with them. If you mean not eagerly attaching labels to people they don't want, then that's an admirable trait.

It's not right for me to insist that Aristotle call himself an atheist if he doesn't want to, but I'm taking an opportunity to try to show him that the reasons for his self-characterization are without sufficient justification and to try to persuade him to recharacterize himself as an agnostic atheist.

JARDINPRAYER:
But, since you bring this up so often, I'd like to understand where you're coming from a bit better.


POWELL:
What people call themselves is very important to them. As a former believer in Mormonism I have personal experience with the problem when other people want to call you something you don't want to be called (non Christian). Since becoming an atheist I have found too many people who don't believe atheists really exist either because they are making flawed arguments as to what it means to be an atheist or are using flawed definitions. I want to correct those problems.

John Powell

[Warcraft3]

Hey there Jardin and John Powell:

I agree with you Jardin that we should not be too quick to slap a label on someone, but I also agree with John about the importance of accuratley defining our arguments and words.

Often people have misunderstandings due to incorrect defintions of terms and it ends up hurting their argument overall.

Clarity and accuracy are very important in developing a sound, logical argument.

Wisdom and maturity (these qualities prevent us from being too quick to label people) are very important in using that argument in a debate.

So I an expression of all four of these qualities between your posts and I think we would all do well to apply them.



Russ

[Alien]

Yesterday @ 06:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=220094#post220094)
steadele:

Hey there Alien:


I really liked your post Alien...especially that last part.

Have some pearls.



Russ

Thanks, Russ.

I've read your posts, but never had occasion to reply before. I consider you to be one of the more reasonable and pleasant people here (without ever being a WFJ of course :teeth:), so ... :cheers:

I keep getting these Pearls and they keep building up, and I never give any to anyone else, because (deep breath) .... I don't know how!! :bawl:

Tony

[Alien]

I'd like to add to/amend the definitions John Powell posted.

Gnostic

A Gnostic is an adherent to gnosticism. From MW Online:

Main Entry: gnos·ti·cism
Pronunciation: 'näs-t&-"si-z&m
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
Date: 1664
: the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis

(Gnosis is a greek word meaning "knowledge".) Thus "Gnostic" denotes an adherent to a very specific belief (see above), not "a person who knows for sure whether God exists".

Agnostic

Originally, this word was coined (by Thomas Huxley I believe) to mean "someone that believes that God is unknowable". Thus one can be a theistic agnostic (believing God is unknowable and also that God exists) or an atheistic agnostic (believing that God is unknowable and also that God does not exist). None of these usages denotes being unable to make up one's mind.

Common usage today tends to define "agnostic" as something like "not sure if God exists". I tend to the opinion that many self-styled agnostics would be better labelled "weak atheists", while defending the right of anyone to call him or herself anything they wish! Here is my argument. Most of our beliefs about quite ordinary things in our day to day lives are not based on absolute certainty. Nevertheless we don't go around expressing doubts about them. We speak and act as if we are sure of what we believe. So why not apply that same standard to God-belief? If you feel there is insufficient evidence to justify a belief in God, then come down off the fence and admit that, on the balance of probability, you believe God does not exist. You're a weak atheist, who "lacks belief in God". There may truly be people whose evaluation of the evidence is so finely balanced that they are simply unable to decide one way or the other. They are probably correctly labelled "agnostic" (in the modern sense). Nevertheless, I feel that this should be a transitional state, which gives way to either theism or atheism as more evidence is accumulated, and not be used as an excuse to keep one foot in each camp.

(This is not intended to be critical of anyone here who chooses to describe themselves as agnostic. Just my opinion.)

[JardinPrayer]

John Powell:

POWELL:
They are my own breakdown based upon the etymology of the words theism and gnosticism...They are not official, but I believe they make more sense than others being promoted.
Perfectly cool, as long as that is clear to those you question about how they label themselves.

Aristotle labelled himself as agnostic. You responded by asking him if he believes in God, and went on to state that if he does, he is a theist and if he does not, he is atheist. I was confused about what appeared to be (what you call) eagerly attaching labels to someone who had just labelled himself the way he wanted to be labelled - and consistently with your definitions, too.

POWELL:
Ridiculous. You have to label people to effectively deal with them. If you mean not eagerly attaching labels to people they don't want, then that's an admirable trait.
Since you find that to be an admirable trait, I'm a little surprised you so eagerly labelled me ridiculous (or my comment, at least, which is of me).

It's not right for me to insist that Aristotle call himself an atheist if he doesn't want to, but I'm taking an opportunity to try to show him that the reasons for his self-characterization are without sufficient justification and to try to persuade him to recharacterize himself as an agnostic atheist.
He labelled himself agnostic and, it seems, so would you. All of that was established before the whole labelling thing was even introduced to this thread.

POWELL:
What people call themselves is very important to them. As a former believer in Mormonism I have personal experience with the problem when other people want to call you something you don't want to be called (non Christian).
Which makes me want to ask again: What was wrong with the way Aristotle labelled himself?

Since becoming an atheist I have found too many people who don't believe atheists really exist either because they are making flawed arguments as to what it means to be an atheist or are using flawed definitions. I want to correct those problems.
I've never met anyone who does not believe atheists exist. That's wild. Besides, if you believe everyone has a right to be labelled as they wish, and at the same time that their labells must conform to someone else's definition of that label...how will you be able to "correct those problems?"

Russ mentions wisdom and accuracy and clarity and maturity as the essential characteristics for forming an argument. I would apply those same characteristics to labelling, which is what I think he was trying to say there. If you say your definitions are your own, then you must also be saying that they may not be the same definitions someone else is using when they label themself. Neither is right, but we are saying different things when we use the label, hence the necessity of clarity.

[Alien]

I've never met anyone who does not believe atheists exist.

I think John is referring to something else (I'll await his explanation) but I have often been told by Christians that (based on Romans 1:20) atheists really believe in God, thay just deny His existence because they are in rebellion. The suggestion is, of course, that they know the contents of someone else's mind better than that person does.

Bible quote, KJV:
Ro 1:20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

[JardinPrayer]

Either way, Tony, denying God is denying God, whether it is because you are willfully disobedient or just don't know any better.

To attempt to bring the thread back on track...is this dissection of words, semantics, beliefs, and writing skills the thing that draws (hesitatingly labels them) atheists to TWeb?

[Warcraft3]

Greetings Alien:

Today @ 03:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=221088#post221088)
Alien:



I think John is referring to something else (I'll await his explanation) but I have often been told by Christians that (based on Romans 1:20) atheists really believe in God, thay just deny His existence because they are in rebellion. The suggestion is, of course, that they know the contents of someone else's mind better than that person does.


Yes I do believe you are correct that that is what John is referring to. off topic: am I supposed to put a comma in between the two "thats" when I use them side by side?

I would say the verse is referring more to the internal witness than external evidence like we normally discuss here at TWEB.

Since I am not God and Paul was under the "influence" when he worte that passage I do not usually comment on it in debates. It something between that person and God and I do not believe it refers to the kind of "evidence" we normally discuss in debates.


Russ

[John Powell]

POWELL:
They are my own breakdown based upon the etymology of the words theism and gnosticism...They are not official, but I believe they make more sense than others being promoted.

JARDINPRAYER:
Perfectly cool, as long as that is clear to those you question about how they label themselves.

Aristotle labelled himself as agnostic. You responded by asking him if he believes in God, and went on to state that if he does, he is a theist and if he does not, he is atheist. I was confused about what appeared to be (what you call) eagerly attaching labels to someone who had just labelled himself the way he wanted to be labelled - and consistently with your definitions, too.


POWELL:
It is my hope that with a little discussion I can persuade Aristotle to revise his self-characterization to something more like "agnostic weak atheist."

POWELL:
Ridiculous. You have to label people to effectively deal with them. If you mean not eagerly attaching labels to people they don't want, then that's an admirable trait.

JARDINPRAYER:
Since you find that to be an admirable trait, I'm a little surprised you so eagerly labelled me ridiculous (or my comment, at least, which is of me).


POWELL:
Because you sometimes write with too little clarity. I do too. I should have said "If you mean not eagerly attaching to people labels they don't deserve, . . ."

Did you eagerly label me a human being when you first began communicating with me? Why? Perhaps I am an alien or an angel or God Himself. The reason you labelled me human was surely because the evidence best supported that conclusion. You are a fan of attaching labels to people, but not in the bad way (when they don't deserve it).

POWELL:
It's not right for me to insist that Aristotle call himself an atheist if he doesn't want to, but I'm taking an opportunity to try to show him that the reasons for his self-characterization are without sufficient justification and to try to persuade him to recharacterize himself as an agnostic atheist.

JARDINPRAYER:
He labelled himself agnostic and, it seems, so would you. All of that was established before the whole labelling thing was even introduced to this thread.


POWELL:
I thought I clearly indicated that I would label him as an agnostic weak atheist. "Agnostic" as I define it does not indicate what your beliefs about God are, only what your claimed knowledge is.

POWELL:
What people call themselves is very important to them. As a former believer in Mormonism I have personal experience with the problem when other people want to call you something you don't want to be called (non Christian).

JARDINPRAYER:
Which makes me want to ask again: What was wrong with the way Aristotle labelled himself?


POWELL:
I believe "agnostic weak atheist" better represents his beliefs and knowledge about God than "agnostic" and I think I have good reasons for that belief.

POWELL:
Since becoming an atheist I have found too many people who don't believe atheists really exist either because they are making flawed arguments as to what it means to be an atheist or are using flawed definitions. I want to correct those problems.

JARDINPRAYER:
I've never met anyone who does not believe atheists exist.


POWELL:
Some theists claim that to be an atheist, to know that God does not exist, you'd have to be God, that people who claim to be atheists are really just agnostics. I used to think that if a person became a true atheist they would commit suicide as soon as possible since they would have no higher purpose for life than to just use up Earth's resources and make more users of resources. Alien supplied another common example, Christians who insist that atheists really do believe in God, but are in self-denial.

JARDINPRAYER:
That's wild. Besides, if you believe everyone has a right to be labelled as they wish, and at the same time that their labells must conform to someone else's definition of that label...how will you be able to "correct those problems?"


POWELL:
That would be difficult.

I should have said things differently. Aristotle is justified in claiming to be neither theist nor atheist if he is sufficiently informed about what he's claiming, if he really understands. I don't think he does yet. Aristotle may not realize it, but he's implying there is a third category besides T and not T. There isn't such a logical category.

JARDINPRAYER:
Russ mentions wisdom and accuracy and clarity and maturity as the essential characteristics for forming an argument. I would apply those same characteristics to labelling, which is what I think he was trying to say there. If you say your definitions are your own, then you must also be saying that they may not be the same definitions someone else is using when they label themself. Neither is right, but we are saying different things when we use the label, hence the necessity of clarity.


POWELL:
That's one of the inherent weaknesses of communication. Everyone uses their own peculiar understanding of the meanings of words. Communication is possible because our definitions are sufficiently similar.

John Powell

[Alien]

Today @ 01:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=221102#post221102)
JardinPrayer:
To attempt to bring the thread back on track...is this dissection of words, semantics, beliefs, and writing skills the thing that draws (hesitatingly labels them) atheists to TWeb?

Not for me, I can do that anywhere! :teeth:

Most atheists I've known like to pick nits though, if that's any help.

[Aristotle]

Lol, all this over little ol' me. I have considered my current position for a looooooong time. I am sure I am purely agnostic as I haven't got any idea on the subject. I read the posits made by both sides and look at the logic and reasoning behind their arguments. From this alone, I consider how well built the argument is and think about any possible ways to negate. I honestly have not one clue on the existence of God. But I will say this: From all the thinking and reading I have done, I don't think religion has got the right ideas about God......same thing goes for you atheists too :idea: In a note I wrote too my math teacher about this, I showed how assigning attributes - such as good, holy, or omnipotent - seems to contradict the ideology and logic behind what we consider to be true concepts about God. (That note definitely made my college math teacher think and she eventually recommended me for my college's honor program! She so rox!) I can post the note here if anyone is interested :D

Regarding the glass and water thing:
It is fuzzy logic. The idea behind where a glass is half full or half empty is that logic is based on a bivalent system of rationality. Either the glass is full or it is empty; either the statement is true or it is false. Fuzzy logic comes in when one must determine boundaries. When does a glass become full or empty? When something can have a contradiction as a truth, it is called fuzzy. The glass can be both half empty or half full.

What I was getting at is that I could claim God exists but at the same time I would have to deny that God exists. The in-between is Agnosticism. Unless you want me walking around calling myself an Athiestic-Theist (I should do that sometime to confuse someone).

The idea behind my paradigm of the court system and evidence was that one must be assumed to be something or else they can not be called anything or be shown to be otherwise until there is sufficient evidence to prove that the person is on either side. Then once it has been shown that the person is on one of the two sides, the court would have to procede showing that the person is more of one then the other. In much simpler terms, and much like your statement, once one ceases to be theist they are no longer theist but could possibly be a theist. It must be determined how theist, agnostic, or athiestic one is. If this weren't true, I would not see the point in having soooo many labels for so many varying beliefs.

Concerning faith:

I do have different ideas about faith but I wanted to make sure the difference isn't because I misunderstood something along the way. I don't think the definition you gave actually explains what faith is. After all, if I said to you "Tell me about who you are," you wouldn't say "The weird googley, eyed blob that used to be in my mommy's tummy!" :shocked: I would expect a response that would reflect your opinions, hobbies, humor, likes/dislikes, etc...

Me after no sleep and almost endless pondering ---> :troll:

[Alien]

Today @ 02:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=221202#post221202)
steadele:
off topic: am I supposed to put a comma in between the two "thats" when I use them side by side?


I would not add a comma. I try to avoid that construction, though it's perfectly grammatical IMO, because it looks odd, but sometimes it's just what you want to say, right?

Your other comments are noted. :smile:

[John Powell]

ARISTOTLE:
Lol, all this over little ol' me. I have considered my current position for a looooooong time. I am sure I am purely agnostic as I haven't got any idea on the subject. I read the posits made by both sides and look at the logic and reasoning behind their arguments. From this alone, I consider how well built the argument is and think about any possible ways to negate. I honestly have not one clue on the existence of God. But I will say this: From all the thinking and reading I have done, I don't think religion has got the right ideas about God......same thing goes for you


POWELL:
Thanks for the response, Aristotle. I hope you're enjoying TWEB!:yipee:

Based on your response, including the fact that you did not answer my questions, I think you still don't understand.

Let me simplify.

Q1. Do you BELIEVE that Santa Claus, as usually described (magical elves, flying reindeer, north pole address), exists? Y/N or other and explain.

Q2. Do you ABSOLUTELY KNOW whether Santa Claus, as usually described, exists or not? Y/N or other and explain.

Thank you.

John Powell

[Aristotle]

I have stated my answers to these questions numerous times. I have absolutely no idea whether God exists or not. I am agnostic because I really have no position concerning the existence of God. If you would just read my posts and accept that I am agnostic, I wouldn't have to poke you in the eye with a pointy object :poke:

[Warcraft3]

Hey there Aristotle...welcome to TWEB:smile:

Today @ 11:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=221536#post221536)
Aristotle:

I have stated my answers to these questions numerous times. I have absolutely no idea whether God exists or not. I am agnostic because I really have no position concerning the existence of God. If you would just read my posts and accept that I am agnostic, I wouldn't have to poke you in the eye with a pointy object :poke:

:lol: I like the humor in your post....I use the smiles for humor purposes myself. Im gald you have a sense of humor (you will need it).

Now on to the meat of your post............

I dont know how many of Powells posts you have read, but he always strives to be as accurate as possible, even if it means defining terms in great detail. He often makes excellent suggestions and corrections, although implementing them can sometimes make ones posts have extra qualifying statements in them.

But in the end I have found that following his advice is well worth the effort and it makes you think a little deeper than you did before.



Russ

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Thanks for the plug, Russ. I hope I don't disappoint you with my hardline approach in this post.

ARISTOTLE:
I have stated my answers to these questions numerous times.


POWELL:
No you haven't, Aristotle. I have asked you specific questions but you have not properly answered them. Here they are again. :deal:

POWELL:
Q1-Q4. Aristotle, what are your definitions for the following terms?
theist, atheist, agnostic, gnostic?


POWELL:
Where did you supply your definitions for those words? :huh:

POWELL:
Q5. Which statement below best represents your knowledge and belief about the existence of Santa Claus as usually taught (magical elves, flying reindeer, living at the north pole)? [I've omitted the bogus choices for simplicity.]

I know and believe that Santa Claus exists. (Gnostic Santaist)

I know and believe that Santa Claus does not exist. (Gnostic ASantaist).

I believe that Santa Claus exists, but I don't know for sure that Santa Claus exists. (Agnostic Santaist).

I don't believe that Santa Claus exists, but I don't know for sure that Santa Claus does not exist. (Agnostic ASantaist).


POWELL:
Where did you identify which of those best represents your position? :huh:

POWELL:
Q6. Do you BELIEVE that Santa Claus, as usually described (magical elves, flying reindeer, north pole address), exists? Y/N or other and explain.

Q7. Do you ABSOLUTELY KNOW whether Santa Claus, as usually described, exists or not? Y/N or other and explain.


POWELL:
If you have answered these questions, Aristotle, please post what your previous replies were. :help:

ARISTOTLE:
I have absolutely no idea whether God exists or not. I am agnostic because I really have no position concerning the existence of God. If you would just read my posts and accept that I am agnostic, I wouldn't have to poke you in the eye with a pointy object :poke:


POWELL:
Your statement betrays your beliefs on the matter, Aristotle.

You said "I have absolutely no idea whether God exists or not." Clearly that means you do not have a positive belief in the existence of God. Therefore, you are an atheist.

If you believed in the existence of God, Aristotle, which you don't then you'd be a theist. If you're not a theist then you're a "not theist" or atheist. The atheist category includes everything that isn't a theist. It doesn't matter if you don't know for sure (agnostic).

Everything in the universe is either a man or not a man. "Not a man" covers everything that is not a man. Likewise, every person is either a theist or not a theist = atheist. If the person believes in God they are a theist. Otherwise they are an atheist.

Is that clear? :brow:

Actually, it's more complicated than that since one must agree as to what the definition of God is, but let's not complicate things before it's necessary, ok?

John Powell

[JardinPrayer]

Alien's comment about the penchant for nit-picking drew an out-loud "Amen" from me. Not that nit-picking is a bad thing...most primates rely on it for grooming and health. I'm not taking a swat at John Powell...I've read enough of his posts to respect his apparantly genuine desire to promote clarity and understanding. I just sometimes think it's not necessary to beat an issue to death. Whether or not you agree on the label, it does seem clear to me that you understand each other's view. If Aristotle never calls himself an agnostic weak-atheist, does that change the fact that John Powell understands Aristotle has "no idea about the existence of God?" Sorry, I just think "enough awready" on that. I do, however, understand what JP Is trying to accomplish.

Russ...no comma. When in doubt, leave it out.

[JardinPrayer]

Actually, it's more complicated than that since one must agree as to what the definition of God is, but let's not complicate things before it's necessary, ok

:lol: Complication is apparently inevitable!

(Honestly introducing a light note here...not picking a fight.)

[Aristotle]

I have no idea concerning the existence of God meaning I have no position concerning the matter. I have said constantly I am agnostic because I refuse to make a decision whether God exists or not. I am not atheist nor am I theist. This is basically the answer to all your questions as I am unconcerned about your labelling system--as it defines things in your terms rather then a more general approach which is usually much more effective in conceptual organization. With specificity, we can lose the broadened ideas which many hold maybe even causing some to fit in none of the categories. I am completely and wholly agnostic. I don't understand why this needs to be argued. I understand my position and justifications fully. I am AGNOSTIC.....A-G-N-O-S-T-I-C. I am not some yuppy that learned his present knowledge after picking up a children's book on Philosophy. So please do not assume that I don't know what I am talking about. If I don't know what I am talking about, I will tell you. Period. Because of this, I must go beyond the pointy object: you---->:bow::whip:<----me

Lol, these smileys have to be the reason Atheists come to Tweb.

P.S. - Your point concerning everything man and not man is fallacious in the sense of its implications concerning logic. Logic as a bivalent reasoning system describes a way in which we should think, but not the way we do think (The latter is far superior then the former as we would all be montonous drones otherwise). The problem of a bivalent system as you describe is apparent when trying to categorize a baby's formation in the womb. At what point does it stop being a chicken or fish and becomes a human baby? What happens if a child is born with with both male and female reproductive organs? The child is now both man and not man in this case. Reread my post concerning Fuzzy logic for a much more well informed response.

[JardinPrayer]

The thread has sorta been hijacked, but it's possible we have heard from all the atheists that have chosen to respond to it, so that's not necessarily a bad thing.

So, I'll just add that I'm more confused by John Powell than by Aristotle. If I get this right, I hear JP saying:

1) His definitions are not "official," but he regards them as better than the "official" ones.

2) He has a desire to "correct the problem" of people labelling themselves or others inaccurately based on wrong definitions.

3) He has determined that his definitions are the ones we should all adopt because, in his view, they make the most sense.

4) He believes people should not have to put up with being assigned labels they either do not want or "do not deserve."

5) He believes that if someone has mis-labelled themself according to his own definitions, it is his duty to bring them around to conform to his definition of the label.

I'm sorry, JP, but this really does seem rigid and unecessary. You said earlier that it is essential to label people in order to interact with them effectively. Seems to me that, in that pursuit, you have confused me and peeved Aristotle off - and you seem to feel that's just part of what we all have to go through until you can get us to "understand" our errors and do it your way.

I've seen some wonderful posts by you and I know you're meticulous and thoughtful poster. I just really think this is way, way, way out of proportion.

Aristotle and I understand what he means when he says he is agnostic. I was once exactly where he is now and when he describes that with either the label or the explanation, I totally connect with what he's saying enough to interact with him effectively. I don't think he or I can say that of our interactions with you in this thread.

I keep feeling I need to say that I'm not picking a fight. I'm not an experienced debator and dislike getting into battles on TWeb. I just really don't get why this is such a huge deal.

Peace,
J:pray:

[John Powell]

Post #69:

JARDINPRAYER:
Alien's comment about the penchant for nit-picking drew an out-loud "Amen" from me. Not that nit-picking is a bad thing...most primates rely on it for grooming and health. I'm not taking a swat at John Powell...I've read enough of his posts to respect his apparantly genuine desire to promote clarity and understanding. I just sometimes think it's not necessary to beat an issue to death.


POWELL:
I'm trying to figure out how best to persuade Aristotle to change his opinion. Given the current situation the possibilities are dwindling.

JARDINPRAYER:
Whether or not you agree on the label, it does seem clear to me that you understand each other's view.


POWELL:
I don't think Aristotle does, yet.

JARDINPRAYER:
If Aristotle never calls himself an agnostic weak-atheist, does that change the fact that John Powell understands Aristotle has "no idea about the existence of God?" Sorry, I just think "enough awready" on that. I do, however, understand what JP Is trying to accomplish.

Russ...no comma. When in doubt, leave it out.


Post #70:

POWELL:
Actually, it's more complicated than that since one must agree as to what the definition of God is, but let's not complicate things before it's necessary, ok

JARDINPRAYER:
Complication is apparently inevitable!

(Honestly introducing a light note here...not picking a fight.)


Post #72:

JARDINPRAYER:
The thread has sorta been hijacked, but it's possible we have heard from all the atheists that have chosen to respond to it, so that's not necessarily a bad thing.

So, I'll just add that I'm more confused by John Powell than by Aristotle. If I get this right, I hear JP saying:

1) His definitions are not "official," but he regards them as better than the "official" ones.


POWELL:
Yes.

JARDINPRAYER:
2) He has a desire to "correct the problem" of people labelling themselves or others inaccurately based on wrong definitions.


POWELL:
With respect to atheist and Christian, yes.

JARDINPRAYER:
3) He has determined that his definitions are the ones we should all adopt because, in his view, they make the most sense.


POWELL:
Yes.

JARDINPRAYER:
4) He believes people should not have to put up with being assigned labels they either do not want or "do not deserve."


POWELL:
My thoughts were not clear there. Drop the "do not want" and retain the "do not deserve."

JARDINPRAYER:
5) He believes that if someone has mis-labelled themself according to his own definitions, it is his duty to bring them around to conform to his definition of the label.


POWELL:
Wrong. It is my desire to persuade them to have the same opinion that I do about this issue.

JARDINPRAYER:
I'm sorry, JP, but this really does seem rigid and unecessary.


POWELL:
Good point.

JARDINPRAYER:
You said earlier that it is essential to label people in order to interact with them effectively. Seems to me that, in that pursuit, you have confused me and peeved Aristotle off - and you seem to feel that's just part of what we all have to go through until you can get us to "understand" our errors and do it your way.


POWELL:
That may be true in this case, but it doesn't have to be the case in general. Most definitions are better understood than "atheist."

JARDINPRAYER:
I've seen some wonderful posts by you and I know you're meticulous and thoughtful poster. I just really think this is way, way, way out of proportion.


POWELL:
It's unusual for me here at TWEB. I hoped a fellow skeptic would be more amenable to proper logical discourse than Aristotle seems to be.

JARDINPRAYER:
Aristotle and I understand what he means when he says he is agnostic. I was once exactly where he is now and when he describes that with either the label or the explanation, I totally connect with what he's saying enough to interact with him effectively. I don't think he or I can say that of our interactions with you in this thread.


POWELL:
Aristotle would have found it much easier to interact with me if he had answered my questions rather than evading them and then falsely claiming he had answered them.

JARDINPRAYER:
I keep feeling I need to say that I'm not picking a fight. I'm not an experienced debator and dislike getting into battles on TWeb. I just really don't get why this is such a huge deal.

Peace,
J


POWELL:
Perhaps I was overconfident in my ability to present the logical reasons why Aristotle should consider himself to be an agnostic weak atheist rather than neither atheist nor theist.

John Powell

[John Powell]

ARISTOTLE:
I have stated my answers to these questions numerous times.


POWELL:
Where did you answer my questions, Aristotle? By making this false claim you are insinuating that I am improperly repeating questions to you that have already been properly answered.

To help you answer them I even numbered them in my previous post to you.

When are you going to either answer my questions or revise your statement above to something more truthful like "I have stated my answers as well as I want to. I'm an agnostic and I don't care if my reasons cannot be properly justified to you. I don't use bivalent reasoning. I resist specificity of definitions."

If you cannot logically justify your reasons for believing the way you do with something better than the following:

ARISTOTLE:
I have considered my current position for a looooooong time.


POWELL:
then why do you hold to those beliefs? Do you not realize that how long someone thinks about a thing does not ensure that their belief is correct?

Aristotle:
I have no idea concerning the existence of God meaning I have no position concerning the matter.


POWELL:
But you do have a position on the matter, Aristotle. Your position is that you do not currently believe in God.

ARISTOTLE:
I have said constantly I am agnostic because I refuse to make a decision whether God exists or not.


POWELL:
But you have made a decision, Aristotle. You have decided not to believe in God right now.

ARISTOTLE:
I am not atheist nor am I theist.


POWELL:
Since you are not a theist, logically you must be an atheist.

If you would have provided your definitions for theist, atheist, agnostic, and gnostic, then I would have been better able to show you why you were mistaken. However, rather than giving me that opportunity you evaded my questions and provided fallacious reasons for your belief.

ARISTOTLE:
This is basically the answer to all your questions as I am unconcerned about your labelling system--as it defines things in your terms rather then a more general approach which is usually much more effective in conceptual organization.


POWELL:
What is this "more general approach" you're referring to, Aristotle, to use words without specified meaning? What are your definitions for the relevant terms, theist, atheist, agnostic, and gnostic?

ARISTOTLE:
With specificity, we can lose the broadened ideas which many hold maybe even causing some to fit in none of the categories.


POWELL:
Are you suggesting that the meanings of words should be left unspecified? What nonsense is this, Aristotle?

ARISTOTLE:
I am completely and wholly agnostic.


POWELL:
Perhaps, but you're also completely and wholly atheist. Your knowledge about the existence of God is a separate question than your beliefs about God. Maybe the problem is that to you knowledge and belief mean the same thing. If you would better specify your meanings maybe we could communicate more effectively.

ARISTOTLE:
I don't understand why this needs to be argued.


POWELL:
Because you insinuated that I was improperly asking you questions again that you had already answered.

ARISTOTLE:
I understand my position and justifications fully.


POWELL:
I seriously doubt that. Show it. Explain your reasons by first giving your definitions for theist, atheist, agnostic, and gnostic, then answering my questions concerning your belief and knowledge of Santa Claus.

ARISTOTLE:
I am AGNOSTIC.....A-G-N-O-S-T-I-C.


POWELL:
Do you even know what "agnostic" and "atheist" are, Aristotle? If you do please supply your definitions.

ARISTOTLE:
I am not some yuppy that learned his present knowledge after picking up a children's book on Philosophy. So please do not assume that I don't know what I am talking about.


POWELL:
I'm becoming more and more convinced you don't know what you're talking about, Aristotle. If you did you would have probably already given your definitions for theist, atheist, gnostic, and agnostic and answered my questions about Santa Claus.

ARISTOTLE:
If I don't know what I am talking about, I will tell you. Period. Because of this, I must go beyond the pointy object: you----&gt;:bow::whip:&lt;----me


POWELL:
Right. "God exists. If I'm wrong I'll tell you. Period." Is that really how you plan to present your views on God, with arguments by assertion?

ARISTOTLE:
Lol, these smileys have to be the reason Atheists come to Tweb.


POWELL:
And now, after presenting weak support for his position, Aristotle makes an attempt at being more logical, in a post script!

ARISTOTLE:
P.S. - Your point concerning everything man and not man is fallacious in the sense of its implications concerning logic.


POWELL:
You are wrong. Please provide your definition of "fallacious" and I will show you why you're wrong.

ARISTOTLE:
Logic as a bivalent reasoning system describes a way in which we should think, but not the way we do think (The latter is far superior then the former as we would all be montonous drones otherwise).


POWELL:
Your argument is deductively fallacious. You are arguing that it is far superior to argue with non bivalent reasoning systems than with bivalent ones because otherwise we would be monotonous drones, presumably a bad thing. This is the deductive fallacy of appeal to consequences.

http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/

CURTIS:
Arguing that a proposition is true because belief in it has good consequences, or that it is false because belief in it has bad consequences is clearly an irrelevancy.


POWELL:
Furthermore, you are arguing by assertion because you did not supply sufficient grounds for us to think that if we did what you propose than such would result. You expect us to believe it on your mere say-so. We apparently do think bivalently or "bi-valuedly" from very early: There is "me" and everything else is "not me". Don't you agree, Aristotle?

Even if you were right that arguing bivalently would make us into undersirable things, that would not change the deductive validity of the arguments we presented. Deductive arguments do not become invalid because they are presented by undersirable proponents. The truth of a proposition is independent of whose doing the proposing.

ARISTOTLE:
The problem of a bivalent system as you describe is apparent when trying to categorize a baby's formation in the womb. At what point does it stop being a chicken or fish and becomes a human baby?


POWELL:
It depends on your definitions of such things, Aristotle. Based on most people's definitions of such things, the human baby is always a human baby, never a chicken or a fish. Perhaps this is more difficult for you because you disdain the "specificity" of such things.

ARISTOTLE:
What happens if a child is born with with both male and female reproductive organs?


POWELL:
It depends on your definitions of such things, Aristotle. Are you beginning to see that specificity makes a difference? What's the genotype?

ARISTOTLE:
The child is now both man and not man in this case.


POWELL:
Not necessarily Aristotle. Assuming you have a good "specific" definition of "man," the child can only be one or the other. If you have a bad definition then you could have problems.

Here's an example of a bad problem.

A "smart man" is defined to be a man named Aristotle who claims he is an agnostic.

A "not smart man" is defined to be a man named Aristotle who claims he is an agnostic.

With those bad definitions you are defined to be both smart and not smart at the same time. Perhaps you think such definitions are good since they rebel against bi-valued logic.

ARISTOTLE:
Reread my post concerning Fuzzy logic for a much more well informed response.


POWELL:
Given the length of this post, I suggest not. If you really want me to consider it then please repost it in your reply.

I hope this "brain exercising" dialogue is beneficial to you, Aristotle, even if it is strongly adversarial. Later, you'll probably see me as a more diplomatic sort of person.

John Powell

[Aristotle]

I have answered your questions by telling you that I am agnostic. I do not understand why you wish to be seen as a smart ass. It is obvious that you do not understand where I am coming from. I am tired of dealing with people who think of themselves to be the only people knowing anything. I did not withdraw into a belief of atheism once leaving christianity. I left the held conceptions of God once leaving christianity. This in no way denies or confirms a held ideal concerning the existence of God. I understand what you say and I know that it does not apply to me which is why I have continuously told you that I am agnostic. I have also told you that I am not concerned about labels nor am I accepting of new systematic conceptual identifiers. It is not important whether I am agnostic, atheist, theist, or gnostic. What is much more important are the ideas we possess and their arguments. You have admitted to persuading me to accept your opinions, which seems to defy the the statement of persuing conceptual calrification. This assumes you think only you are right and only your labels can be used to identify ourselves or others. If you wish to concern yourself over such trivial matters as labelling, then do so, but exclude me from this foolish crusade to enlighten only your own ego.

In reference to a previous statement about how multivalent thinking was superior, I meant so to us as human beings in everyday life. In everyday thinking, multivalent knowledge greatly benefits us. I apologize for not being clear enough on this thought.

It does not seem wise to consider people at an early age, after all they do not even know that something continues to exist even if they aren't presently perceiving it. Their logic is still building and being mastered.

The me and not me response is still not a good usage of bivalent logic. Take for instance the hand. I seem to have no impression of the self in my hand (not me) but it seems to respond to me (is me). The hand is a part of the self only slightly while not being me. It is this uncertainty, this gray area, that is where fuzzy logic dominates. A bivalent logic in this case would fail because the hand seems to be part of me to some extent while not being me to a greater extent. The hand ends up being neither 100% me nor 100% not me.

[John Powell]

ARISTOTLE:
I have answered your questions by telling you that I am agnostic.


POWELL:
When I asked you what your definitions were for theist, atheist, agnostic, and gnostic, Aristotle, is it your opinion that "I am an agnostic" is the proper answer?

When I asked you whether or not you believed in Santa Claus, is it your opinion that "I am an agnostic" is the proper answer?

When I asked you if you knew whether Santa Claus did or did not exist, is it your opinion that "I am an agnostic" is the proper answer?

For someone who presumably thinks of himself as something of a logical philosopher, you appear to not sufficiently understand what the proper response is to those kinds of questions.

Let me help you. When someone asks, "What is your definition for theist?" the proper reply is "My definition for theist is ____" or something like "I don't wish to answer your question." The proper response is not "I am an agnostic." or "I answered that question already."

On the other hand, maybe you did answer all my questions the best you could when you said "I am agnostic" because to you this means "I don't know. I don't know what a definition is. I don't know what an atheist or those other things are. I don't know anything about Santa Claus." :baby:

ARISTOTLE:
I do not understand why you wish to be seen as a smart ass.


POWELL:
What relevance does that have to do with how to properly answer a question, Aristotle? Assuming I were a smart ass, would that justify you in claiming you answered questions that you didn't?

ARISTOTLE:
It is obvious that you do not understand where I am coming from.


POWELL:
Perhaps you are right. Why don't you help communicate by answering my questions?

ARISTOTLE:
I am tired of dealing with people who think of themselves to be the only people knowing anything.


POWELL:
Have you had some painful experiences in which others have made you feel intellectually inferior?

ARISTOTLE:
I did not withdraw into a belief of atheism once leaving christianity.

POWELL:
There are other forms of theism besides Christianity, Aristotle, so that's not surprising.

ARISTOTLE:
I left the held conceptions of God once leaving christianity.


POWELL:
That means you stopped believing in that particular God-concept. You became a non believer in that particular God. You became a nontheist with respect to that God. You became an atheist with respect to that God.

ARISTOTLE:
This in no way denies or confirms a held ideal concerning the existence of God.


POWELL:
Perhaps you think an atheist is someone who denies the existence of God. Is that what you think an atheist is, Aristotle?

ARISTOTLE:
I understand what you say and I know that it does not apply to me which is why I have continuously told you that I am agnostic.


POWELL:
I doubt that you understand yet.

ARISTOTLE:
I have also told you that I am not concerned about labels nor am I accepting of new systematic conceptual identifiers.


POWELL:
Absurd. If everyone at TWEB starting calling you bad names you would be concerned about it. If everyone you saw started calling you bad names you would be concerned about it. You are concerned about labels, Aristotle.

It's not surprising that you are resistant to accepting new labels. As people age they tend to become more resistant to change.

ARISTOTLE:
It is not important whether I am agnostic, atheist, theist, or gnostic.

POWELL:
If it's not important to you then can we agree that you are an agnostic weak atheist and stop arguing?

ARISTOTLE:
What is much more important are the ideas we possess and their arguments.


POWELL:
Generally, yes, but not when the issue at hand is whether you have good reasons to deny being an atheist.

Besides, Aristotle, why do you feel capable of adequately defending beliefs you haven't thought so long about when you seem unable to adequately defend beliefs you have thought long about?

ARISTOTLE:
You have admitted to persuading me to accept your opinions, which seems to defy the the statement of persuing conceptual calrification.


POWELL:
Where did I indicate my goal was merely conceptual clarification? Haven't I made it clear my goal is persuasion? Even if I had both those goals would they be contradictory?

Oh, and Aristotle, how can one thing "defy" another without bi-valued logic?

ARISTOTLE:
This assumes you think only you are right and only your labels can be used to identify ourselves or others.


POWELL:
No it doesn't. It assumes I think I have the better definitions for things like "atheist".

ARISTOTLE:
If you wish to concern yourself over such trivial matters as labelling, then do so, but exclude me from this foolish crusade to enlighten only your own ego.


POWELL:
Self-designation is not the unimportant matter you claim, Aristotle.

Fine, if you aren't going to properly play "patty cakes" (I ask, you answer and ask, I answer and ask, etc.) then I'm wasting my time with you. You have insulated yourself from being persuaded in the ways I've tried. That's your right.

ARISTOTLE:
In reference to a previous statement about how multivalent thinking was superior, I meant so to us as human beings in everyday life. In everyday thinking, multivalent knowledge greatly benefits us. I apologize for not being clear enough on this thought.


POWELL:
Some ideas are better treated in terms of 1 and 0 and others are better treated as values between 1 and 0.

ARISTOTLE:
It does not seem wise to consider people at an early age, after all they do not even know that something continues to exist even if they aren't presently perceiving it. Their logic is still building and being mastered.


POWELL:
I think cognitive development is an important field of study.

ARISTOTLE:
The me and not me response is still not a good usage of bivalent logic. Take for instance the hand. I seem to have no impression of the self in my hand (not me) but it seems to respond to me (is me). The hand is a part of the self only slightly while not being me.


POWELL:
If you imagine your hand as being part of you then it is within the set of things that you imagine are part of you. If you don't imagine your hand as being part of you (say it's been cut off) then it's no longer within the set of things that you imagine are part of you. Now, Aristotle, are there things that are neither within the set of things that you imagine as being part of you nor within the set of everything else? What are examples of things that are outside of this two-valued logic?

ARISTOTLE:
It is this uncertainty, this gray area, that is where fuzzy logic dominates. A bivalent logic in this case would fail because the hand seems to be part of me to some extent while not being me to a greater extent. The hand ends up being neither 100% me nor 100% not me.


POWELL:
Perhaps your problem is a lack of specificity. Perhaps you're letting a dynamic definition of "me" mislead you to overly criticize two-valued logic. Because one moment "me" includes the hand (such as when something bites it: "The spider bit me"), but the next minute you use the hand like it's not you, but something attached to you ("I smashed the spider with my hand"), therefore you conclude that at no time is the hand 0% or 100% "me." Am I anywhere close?

Now, Aristotle, let me try again.

Will you please give me your definitions? :help:

Q1. What is your definition for theism?

Q2. What is your definition for atheism?

Q3. What is your definition for gnosticism?

Q4. What is your definition for agnosticism?

Will you also please answer the following two questions about God? :help:

Q5. Do you believe the Christian God exists? (Y/N or neither and explain).

Q6. Do you absolutely know whether or not the Christian God exists? (Y/N or neither and explain)

Will you also please answer the following two questions about Santa Claus? :help:

Q7. Do you believe that Santa Claus, as usually described (magical elves, flying reindeer, north pole address), exists? (Y/N or neither and explain).

Q8. Do you absolutely know whether or not Santa Claus, as usually described, exists? (Y/N or neither and explain).

Thanks. :cheers:

John Powell

[JardinPrayer]

I would like to express my appreciation to John Powell for his thoughtful, courteous, and even gentle responses to me in Post #73. While I may not completely agree with his objective in this case, he did present a solid case for his good intentions, a clear and respectful answer to my questions, and an obvious understanding of my desire not to engage him in the way Aristotle (or other debators) have. Pearls for you, sir.

That said, I find myself sympathetic to both Aristotle's desire to draw his boundaries where he feels comfortable and John Powell's desire to unify us in our understanding. This could well be the first time I'm actually going to enjoy reading a debate where spirits run high (I'm such a dopey pacifist!*)

* Howzat for a label?

Peace,

[jesusreligion]

I believe that what draws atheists to t-web is the ability to see through the contradictions in the traditional christian beliefs that the christian cannot seem to see. If one thinks many of the "tenets" of faith through to their logical conclusion, they do not add up.

I myself am not an atheist, but a believer in God; yet, I cannot believe the religion which has been formed in the name of Jesus. I believe Jesus' message was different and higher than religion has claimed. I have a weblink (if the moderator will allow it) that asks over 50 questions regarding these inconsistencies. The link is http://www.jesusreligion.com/p1LC

I believe most hear within themselves the existence and truth about God; however, they smell a counterfeit - that counterfeit being the "Jesus Religion" that just doesn't add up with the condemnation, fear and guilt message. Therefore, they wisely run from what most call "the church." Funny how people ran from the religious system and out to hear Jesus, wherever he was, proclaim truth.

If the moderator does not allow the link, then e-mail me at truthwithinyou@yahoo.com

[John Powell]

JESUSRELIGION:
I believe that what draws atheists to t-web is the ability to see through the contradictions in the traditional christian beliefs that the christian cannot seem to see. If one thinks many of the &quot;tenets&quot; of faith through to their logical conclusion, they do not add up.

I myself am not an atheist, but a believer in God; yet, I cannot believe the religion which has been formed in the name of Jesus. I believe Jesus' message was different and higher than religion has claimed. I have a weblink (if the moderator will allow it) that asks over 50 questions regarding these inconsistencies. The link is http://www.jesusreligion.com/p1LC


POWELL:
Welcome to TWEB, Jesusreligion! :cheers:

I just read the 9 pages of your "The Ax to the Roots." You ask some good questions. If you have some you especially want me to answer, I'll try, perhaps from the perspective of a Mormon believer.

I have two questions for you.

Q1. Did Jesus always present His important teachings openly to the world in the synagogue and in the temple OR did He sometimes present important teachings elsewhere and in secret OR what?

Q2. According to the second chapter of Mark, who was the high priest who gave David the shewbread?

John Powell

[JardinPrayer]

Jesusreligion:
From your linked page:
Where can truth be found? How can one hear God? Look within you. An answer of truth will always come without fear, condemnation or guilt upon the wings of peace: like an angel that brings tidings of love, hope and joy. Quite easily, anything less is not truth or God sent. Some, who I will again badge as "religious," will no doubt try to scare you with fear into not even considering thoughts outside of their own beliefs and teachings. Does that make their beliefs valid? They may say, "How do you know what you are hearing is from God and not from the devil himself? Perhaps, Satan is whispering his lies in your ear!" Judge what you hear by one simple means of measurement: does it come out of love on wings of peace?

While I haven't read much further, I must say that it appears you are engaging in the very practice you are telling people to run from, namely untruth. You do not hear God by looking within yourself...you hear God by reading His word. The Holy Spirit cannot call to rememberance that which you have never heard to begin with. I consider it a dire mistake to look anywhere but the Holy Scriptures to "hear" God. As for knowing how to discern truth because the message is loving and peaceful, I have to once again say this is a dangerous thing to teach. God Himself speaks in harsh warnings and does tremendous destruction in the bible. Isaiah prophecies doom for those who do not hear and obey God. Jesus warns very strongly against turning from God's will. I'm quite franky alarmed that you would preach this pollyanna view of God and Christianity. Satan, however, has been known to whisper tantalizing things in one's ear and promise comfort, peace, and security falsely.

I am not opening this thread to your topic, though I invite you to open a thread of your own to open the discussion further, if you wish. I see your post as an inappropriate self-promotion that was in no way relevant to the thread.

Whoa. That's the crankiest I ever get on TWeb!

[JardinPrayer]

If Jesusreligion would like to address John Powell's questions, I request he begin his own thread.

[John Powell]

JardinPrayer:
If Jesusreligion would like to address John Powell's questions, I request he begin his own thread.


POWELL:
Excellent idea. The Apologetics section would be most appropriate.

John Powell

[jesusreligion]

You say, "The Holy Spirit cannot call to rememberance that which you have never heard to begin with. I consider it a dire mistake to look anywhere but the Holy Scriptures to "hear" God. As for knowing how to discern truth because the message is loving and peaceful, I have to once again say this is a dangerous thing to teach. God Himself speaks in harsh warnings and does tremendous destruction in the bible. Isaiah prophecies doom for those who do not hear and obey God. Jesus warns very strongly against turning from God's will. I'm quite franky alarmed that you would preach this pollyanna view of God and Christianity. Satan, however, has been known to whisper tantalizing things in one's ear and promise comfort, peace, and security falsely."

Alarmed you may be, but shocked I am not. I knew the message of warning and fear would be shot this way!

First, let me address "the Holy Scriptures" you mention above as the way to "hear God." You make the same mistake that the pharisees made when Jesus spoke against them. Your message of fear and condemnation will save no one; yet you will make your converts two-fold the children of hell. "How?" By placing fear into their minds. What you call holy (the scriptures) has many mistakes in translation within it and is full of contradiction. Yet, you hold it up as law when Jesus clearly taught to hear the Father for yourself.

Is Jesus God? Is Jesus the same, yesterday and forever? If your answer is yes to both questions, then is Jesus the God who murdered the men, women and children of the old testament?
Answer that question. Big contradiction between "Gods" of the new and old testaments. Jesus of "love" and Yahweh of "Law."

God is not fear, which is manmade. You are perpetuating a manmade idea of a God who is to be feared; yet, you say, "God is love." Hogwash! You cannot have it both ways, my friend. God is a God of Love, period.

Again, the scriptures are full of error. Examples: The word translated as "eternal," "eternity" and "forever" is mistranslated. (aion) The words translated as "hell" are mistranslated. (hades, gehenna, sheol)

I could go on and on with this. You are angry with me because I attack the root of your false doctrine created in Jesus' name: fear. If you do not have fear as the power behind your message, then you have no power. If I remove fear from the minds of those you have bound, then they are free...and you have no followers of which you think you have somehow "saved."

Again, atheists see through your argument; you are blind to the truth because you are trying to line up scripture with scripture and create a law for yourself and others. Yet, the very same scriptures state that "the letter of the law kills, but the spirit gives life." The scriptures also state that it is "those who are led by the spirit of God (not the "holy scriptures") who are the sons of God."

[jesusreligion]

I do not have time tonight to open a new thread, nor manage it...

Quickly, here are my replies:

1) Mark 2 states Abiathar was the high priest; I Samuel states Ahimelech (Abiathar's father) was the high priest.

2) John 18:20 states: "I have spoken openly to the world and have said no thing in secret." However, here is where I differ with most christians who are led by the bible:

"Therefore I speak to them in parables because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." (Mat. 13:13)

That is the difference between being led by the letter of the law and the Holy Spirit IN YOU... Goodnight, gentlemen.

Back to the topic by JardinPrayer...atheists on here: Why?

I think atheists want to be wrong about the "no God" thing. Yet, they see through the contradiction of traditional christian doctrine and other religions as well...and may very well feel it their task to "undo" the doctrines of fear and condemnation created by religion which bring about much hate in the world. There is another guess for ya'. :bonk:

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Thanks for your answers, Jesusreligion. Perhaps we can discuss them later.

John Powell.

[JardinPrayer]

I'm not angry with you, Jesusreligion...I just strongly disagree with you. I don't think anyone disagrees that Jesus warned of the price of not seeking salvation. Indeed, the whole idea behind salvation is to SAVE you from an awful eternity.

That said, I will reiterate my request that this topic be taken to a new thread and that it not continue to hijack this one.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
That's fine with me.

John Powell

[jesusreligion]

I see salvation as the undoing of things contrary to truth within us. Again, an atheist desires truth, I would suppose; but cannot make sense of teachings that hold so much contradiction when thought through logically.

Why do athiests come here...I can only speculate, as I have done so in previous posts. I think it verifies to them the fact that they are correct that something is not right with traditional beliefs; and this site also gives them a place to voice their opinions. Heck, that is why I am here!

[BeHereNow]

John Powell:
Everything in the universe is either a man or not a man. "Not a man" covers everything that is not a man.

How would you classify a hermaphrodite?

Earlier you referred to "T" or not "T" as the only two possible options. Could there also be the option of maybe "T"? I think this may be the category Aristotle falls into, and why he wishes to not classify himself in the former two.

/ot Russ, I can't believe you would call yourself a Christian and not know how to use a comma! :fight:
Here's a quick run-down for you.

Commas generally have three purposes:
1. To provide a pause in the sentence for:
a. reading aloud - to provide a break for a breath and to aid enunciation for listeners' clarity
b. reading silently - to help the reader connect what s/he has read
2. To divide phrases or clauses in a sentence
3. To separate items in a list

So, you do not need a comma between "that that," as that would specify a break in continuity, which would muddle clarity. However, the rules for commas are loose, as the main thing to remember is that a comma's ultimate function is to aid clarity - you as the writer make the final decision as to what works.

Man.. I'm such a grammar nerd.

:yipee:

[Aristotle]

I had always wondered what commas were used for.... :shocked:

[JardinPrayer]

* Off topic: Russ, I can't believe you would call yourself a Christian and not know how to use a comma!

:lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

Aristotle, now you not only know what commas are for, you know what it takes to make a REAL Christian!

:JP: <--JardinPrayer's new official smilie.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Everything in the universe is either a man or not a man. "Not a man" covers everything that is not a man.

BEHERENOW:
How would you classify a hermaphrodite?


POWELL:
It depends on the context. I would like to define them biologically based on the genotype, however, social definitions are also important. If I define a man as normal XY and hermaphrodites aren't normal then they aren't men.

BEHERENOW:
Earlier you referred to "T" or not "T" as the only two possible options. Could there also be the option of maybe "T"?


POWELL:
No. Not as to the truth value.

The "maybe" is an indicator of one's confidence in the answer. If I have Sauron's ring in my pocket then what is the truth value of the proposition: "I have Sauron's ring."? The answer is true.

One typically defines T. The definition of "not T" is then inferred from that. To define "T" and "not T" separately without preserving the logical exclusiveness would be improper.

For example, it would be improper to define "man" as "someone who sometimes wears pants" and "not man" as "someone who sometimes wears a dress." If "man" = "someone who sometimes wears pants" then "not man" = "NOT someone who sometimes wears pants."

BEHERENOW:
I think this may be the category Aristotle falls into, and why he wishes to not classify himself in the former two.


POWELL:
Aristotle probably does not realize that "agnostic" is merely an indication of one's knowledge about God's existence, not one's belief. Aristotle probably does not realize that an atheist is merely someone who is not a theist. He probably thinks an atheist is someone who denies the existence of God or someone who believes that God does not exist rather than merely someone who does not believe in the existence of God.

Aristotle resists giving me his definitions, however, so it's more difficult for me to show him his error. He's insulating himself from being forced to reconsider his position relative to this issue. Perhaps he doesn't want to be persuaded so he hides his reasoning from scrutiny, believing mere rocks are pearls.

He'd rather talk about commas than defend his reasons for claiming to be neither T nor not-T. Well, that's his right.

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
In hopes of getting a better understanding of the reasons for Aristotle's reluctance to embrace atheism as the proper designation for his belief about God, I noticed he has recommended books by Bertrand Russell. It's all becoming more clear. Aristotle is probably relying on the mistaken view of people like Russell on what an atheist is.

http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/agnostic.htm

RUSSELL:
What is an Agnostic?
Bertrand Russell

--------------------------------------------------

What Is an agnostic?
An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

Are agnostics atheists?
No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.


POWELL:
Russell is wrong.

Theism and atheism are not about knowledge, but about belief. A theist is NOT "one who knows that God exists" anymore than an atheist is "one who knows that God does not exist." If that were the case then there could not be both theists and atheists, since it cannot both be true that God exists and that He doesn't exist. Furthermore, someone who believes God exists, but doesn't know that God exists would not be considered a theist according to that definition. What designation would Russell suggest for such a hopeful believer? Such definitions fail to properly represent what people mean by such things.

Of course, if one knows that God exists then one must also believe that God exists, but the reverse is not necessarily the case. One can believe that God exists, but not know that God exists.

Nor is a theist defined to be "one who believes that one can know that God exists" anymore than an atheist is defined to be "one who believes that one can know that God does not exist." One's attitude about the limits of knowledge concerning God's existence is a SEPARATE ISSUE from whether one believes or does not believe that God exists. Russell is proposing unwise definitions for these terms. Knowledge and belief are distinct in this context.

Atheists do not necessarily hold that one can know whether or not there is a God, although some do. Atheists merely don't believe God exists. Atheists aren't necessarily claiming they know that God does not exist. Likewise, Christians do not necessarily hold that one can know whether or not there is a God, although many do. Christians believe there is a God whether they claim to know that God exists or not. Most Christians, especially young ones, believe that God exists, but don't know that God exists.

Well, Aristotle, are you prepared to defend your mentor's flawed definition for atheist or will you merely make a deductively fallacious appeal to authority? I'd try to persuade Russell himself if the man were still available and willing.

If you refuse, Aristotle, because you choose to rely on the authority of people like Russell rather than upon logical argumentation then you will help to justify Christians who refuse to question the authority of their religious traditions in the face of logical argumentation. Christians can point to you and say "See, you skeptics are just as reluctant to trust the power of logic to determine what is true and false. The authority of the Bible is what is important, not rational arguments." Is that what you want?

Rather than that please show them what it means to be a free-thinker, someone who can be persuaded to change their opinions EVEN AFTER YEARS OF THINKING ABOUT IT provided sufficiently good arguments and evidence are presented to them.

I'll be waiting to see what you choose.

John Powell

[Aristotle]

I've said this before. I am agnosic meaning I have no belief. The whole time I have known what you have been saying and that is why I said I am agnostic. I am not in an area of belief.


A theist is NOT "one who knows that God exists" anymore than an atheist is "one who knows that God does not exist." If that were the case then there could not be both theists and atheists, since it cannot both be true that God exists and that He doesn't exist.


You are missing a vital piece of semantics. Russell doesn't say an athiest is one who knows that God doesn't exist nor does he say a theist is someone who knows that God exists. Russell says that they are atheist or theist on the grounds of whether they "can know" that God exists or that we "can know" that God doesn't exist. What can be known is the important identifier of what defines people as theist or atheist. I hold that we may not be able to know whether God exists or not, which makes it seemingly impossible to have a belief concerning God.


An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not.


There is a major difference between knowledge and belief. Yet the belief is defined by the knowledge itself. Russell and others merely eliminate the belief part focusing solely on knowledge. To be honest, there is no fault in Russell's writing, it is clearly a mistake of the reader. To put it in simpler terms, if one thinks they can know that God exists, they will spend their time offering proofs and arguments which support that one can know this. The proof from design, the first mover, and others all present arguments of how we can know that God does exist.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Thank you for your response, Aristotle. I now have higher hopes for you.

ARISTOTLE:
I've said this before. I am agnosic [sic] meaning I have no belief.


POWELL:
A person who can't spell agnostic probably hasn't studied its meanings as carefully as someone who can spell it properly, wouldn't you agree, Aristotle?

"Agnostic" is NOT one who has no BELIEF, Aristotle, but one who has no KNOWLEDGE or something like that.

ARISTOTLE:
The whole time I have known what you have been saying and that is why I said I am agnostic. I am not in an area of belief.


POWELL:
You still don't understand, Aristotle. You still have not provided your definitions for theist, atheist, agnostic, and gnostic. Perhaps your definition for agnostic is "someone who has no belief about God." Is that your definition?

POWELL:
A theist is NOT "one who knows that God exists" anymore than an atheist is "one who knows that God does not exist." If that were the case then there could not be both theists and atheists, since it cannot both be true that God exists and that He doesn't exist.

ARISTOTLE:
You are missing a vital piece of semantics.


POWELL:
No I'm not.

ARISTOTLE:
Russell doesn't say an athiest [sic] is one who knows that God doesn't exist nor does he say a theist is someone who knows that God exists.


POWELL:
I know Russell didn't say that and I didn't say he did, but a superficial reading might lead one to think that. You seem to be reading Russell better than you're reading me.

A person who can't properly spell atheist is unlikely to have as good an understanding of what it means as someone who can spell it properly, wouldn't you agree Aristotle?

ARISTOTLE:
Russell says that they are atheist or theist on the grounds of whether they "can know" that God exists or that we "can know" that God doesn't exist.


POWELL:
You're right that's what he says, but Russell is wrong. Theism is about BELIEF, Aristotle, not KNOWLEDGE.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theist

AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY:
the·ism
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

WEBSTER'S REVISED UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY:
theist
n. One who believes in the existence of a God; especially, one who believes in a personal God; -- opposed to atheist.

WORLDNET:
theist
n : one who believes in the existence of a god or gods


POWELL:
Where does KNOWLEDGE relate to this definition, Aristotle? Please provide either an authoritative definition for theist or good reasons to accept the claim that a theist is defined to be someone who believes that knowledge of God can be had.

"Because Russell says so" may be sufficient for someone who is an adoring fan, but it's not sufficient for the rest of the rational world. What is his justification for revising the definitions? Russell is using his own flawed definitions for the terms theist and atheist.

Did you notice that "atheist" is opposed to "theist"? In other words, atheist is a not-theist.

ARISTOTLE:
What can be known is the important identifier of what defines people as theist or atheist.


POWELL:
No, Aristotle, what one BELIEVES is the important identifier for what defines a person as theist or atheist. What they might think about the limits of their knowledge is a separate issue. Russell is wrong. Will you trust your own reasoning powers or trust your mentor, Aristotle?

ARISTOTLE:
I hold that we may not be able to know whether God exists or not, which makes it seemingly impossible to have a belief concerning God.


POWELL:
No, Aristotle, one can believe something exists without knowing that it exists. If you had answered my questions about your beliefs and knowldge about Santa Claus I probably could have more easily shown you this.

RUSSELL:
An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not.

ARISTOTLE:
There is a major difference between knowledge and belief.


POWELL:
YES!!!!

ARISTOTLE:
Yet the belief is defined by the knowledge itself.


POWELL:
No. The belief is defined in terms of the proposition "God exists." Theists believe that the proposition is true. Atheists do not so believe, but that does not necessarily mean that atheists believe the proposition is false. Some atheists haven't even considered the proposition.

You, Aristotle, do not affirm or believe the propostion "God exists" is true, therefore, you are an atheist. However, because you also don't think someone can know for sure whether God exists, you're also an agnostic.

If you believe P then you know that you believe P. However, just because you believe G exists does not mean you know that G exists, it only necessarily means that you know that you believe that G exists.

ARISTOTLE:
Russell and others merely eliminate the belief part focusing solely on knowledge.


POWELL:
What others? On what logical basis do these people rewrite the definitions for things that refer to belief in terms of knowledge? What is their reasoning?

ARISTOTLE:
To be honest, there is no fault in Russell's writing, it is clearly a mistake of the reader.


POWELL:
I hope you'll remember that after I persuade you that Russell was wrong and I'm right.

ARISTOTLE:
To put it in simpler terms, if one thinks they can know that God exists, they will spend their time offering proofs and arguments which support that one can know this. The proof from design, the first mover, and others all present arguments of how we can know that God does exist.


POWELL:
They MIGHT spend their time doing those things. They won't necessarily do them.

Please look up "theist" and "atheist" and "agnostic" at a respectable site like "www.dictionary.com" and post what you find, ok?

Be careful, some of what they say may not mean what you think it means. Don't worry, I'll try to explain.

John Powell

[BeHereNow]

Aristotle:

I had always wondered what commas were used for.... :shocked:

JardinPrayer:

:lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

Aristotle, now you not only know what commas are for, you know what it takes to make a REAL Christian!


Russ has a special blend of loving sarcasm that I like to shoot back at him. We be cool like that. :smile:


John Powell:

POWELL:
It depends on the context. I would like to define them biologically based on the genotype, however, social definitions are also important. If I define a man as normal XY and hermaphrodites aren't normal then they aren't men.

What if you define man as having male genitalia? Some hermaphrodites have both male and female genitalia, in which case they would not be fully man nor fully woman, and I assume that "man" implies fully man.

POWELL:
No. Not as to the truth value.

The "maybe" is an indicator of one's confidence in the answer.
...
One typically defines T. The definition of "not T" is then inferred from that.

What I propose with the hermaphrodite example is not that one isn't confident about it, but that an assignment of "fully man" or "fully not man" would be impossible, so it hinges on the "maybe." Perhaps "half" or "partial" would have been more lucid terms than "maybe"?

I readily admit that you are much more knowledgeable than me in the areas of philosophy and formal logic, so forgive me if my proposition is weak or illogical. I try to explore all possibilities.

He'd rather talk about commas than defend his reasons for claiming to be neither T nor not-T. Well, that's his right.


Take three...... deep..... breaths......

It's nothing personal if he doesn't supply an answer you like.

Breathe in deeply...... breathe out slowly......

:smile:

[Aristotle]

ROFL :lmbo:, using a dictionary to validate philosophical ideas. Perhaps you should also consult the dictionary on what truth or beauty is. I did decide however to make certain that you understand what belief is according to the dictionary:

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.

2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.

3.Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

Definition number two seems to be extremely relative to what Russell was talking about. Since if one can know then an argument or proof would be an instance of validity in that premiss. Knowledge does define belief. After all, your knowledge leads you to believe that your definitions are the only true definitions. In the case of a belief, if I accept what I believe on the grounds of which I declare to be the most truthfully fundamental arguments, then it is ok. Since it is is my belief and right to do so. Not to mention that my belief is based on the knowledge which I hold. If you are implying that my beliefs are wrong based on my supposedly improper knowledge of the subject, you only aquiesce Russell's argument that knowledge is that fundamental basis and classification of belief.

BeHereNow: Commas aren't the only thing wrong with me! Apparently typos make meh unsmartness. I is knowing whats I's talkin bouts! Mah dgos braks ta casr! :lmbo:

[JardinPrayer]

POWELL:
A person who can't spell agnostic probably hasn't studied its meanings as carefully as someone who can spell it properly, wouldn't you agree, Aristotle?
Hey, you slammed me once for a misspelling, too. You're probably just being sarcastic, but I felt I needed to say that sometimes a slip of the finger on the keyboard results in that, ya know? We're not all the best proof-readers in the world...especially if we're sneaking posts in during the business day. At least you can cut Aristotle a small break in that arena, no?

*Remember that custom smilie I showed you before? Well, I now have an official official smilie that I thinks suit me much better:

:gardendevil:

[Warcraft3]

I was getting caught up on the threads I was absent from this weekend and I found this!!!:shocked:



Yesterday @ 01:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=224451#post224451)
BeHereNow:
/ot Russ, I can't believe you would call yourself a Christian and not know how to use a comma! :fight:
HA!!!:bonk: You assume that I actually didnt know the answer.......perhaps I was just trying to see if you would commit "The Steadele Fallacy" by thinking I didnt know something.

And now my plan has shown me those that need to be eliminated.
:flaming:


Here's a quick run-down for you.

Commas generally have three purposes:
1. To provide a pause in the sentence for:
a. reading aloud - to provide a break for a breath and to aid enunciation for listeners' clarity
b. reading silently - to help the reader connect what s/he has read
2. To divide phrases or clauses in a sentence
3. To separate items in a list

So, you do not need a comma between "that that," as that would specify a break in continuity, which would muddle clarity. However, the rules for commas are loose, as the main thing to remember is that a comma's ultimate function is to aid clarity - you as the writer make the final decision as to what works.

Man.. I'm such a grammar nerd.

:yipee:

:thumb: Cool. Im glad you gave that short definition (not for me of course, but for all the morons who read my genius posts) and description.

And yes, you are indeed a grammer nerd.

I think clarity is something we all could use some work on when posting or just discussing things in general. So many arguments are based on misunderstanding of what someone else said/meant.

Of course, sometimes its better to misunderstand someones point than to see it for the cup-o-moron juice it actually is.

Remember my "rules to live by"....

1. People are stupid
2. Capitalize on peoples stupidity

:fight:

Russ

[Warcraft3]

Yesterday @ 01:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=224463#post224463)
Aristotle:

I had always wondered what commas were used for.... :shocked:

I guess they turned to be much more important than you originally thought....:smile:

[Warcraft3]

Yesterday @ 04:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=224547#post224547)
JardinPrayer:



:lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

Aristotle, now you not only know what commas are for, you know what it takes to make a REAL Christian!

:JP: &lt;--JardinPrayer's new official smilie.

:lol:

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 03:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=224935#post224935)
BeHereNow:
Russ has a special blend of loving sarcasm that I like to shoot back at him. We be cool like that. :smile:


And I enjoy you sarcasm quite alot
:cheers: When posts are full of sarcastic remarks it just makes me laugh and laugh and..:lol:

I find sarcasm is useful to not only make a good point....but to make it in a way that makes the reader smile.

If someone shoots down an argument of mine with a good witty comment or example it always makes me smile:smile: (of course not long after the initial smile I am forced to kill them:saywhat: :bomb: )

:hi:

[JardinPrayer]

See, now if the thread is gonna get hijacked, I'm much prefer it be for a good grammar discussion than some wacky sales pitch to reinvent Christianity!

:gardendevil:

[John Powell]

POWELL:
It depends on the context. I would like to define them biologically based on the genotype, however, social definitions are also important. If I define a man as normal XY and hermaphrodites aren't normal then they aren't men.

BEHERENOW:
What if you define man as having male genitalia? Some hermaphrodites have both male and female genitalia, in which case they would not be fully man nor fully woman, and I assume that "man" implies fully man.


POWELL:
If you define man as a person having male genitalia then everything that is not a person with male genitalia would be "not man". A person with both male and female genitalia would be a man based on that definition.

POWELL:
No. Not as to the truth value.

The "maybe" is an indicator of one's confidence in the answer.
...
One typically defines T. The definition of "not T" is then inferred from that.

BEHERENOW:
What I propose with the hermaphrodite example is not that one isn't confident about it, but that an assignment of "fully man" or "fully not man" would be impossible, so it hinges on the "maybe."


POWELL:
If you define a man as someone with male genitalia, but not female genitalia, then a hermaphrodite is not a man.

BEHERENOW:
Perhaps "half" or "partial" would have been more lucid terms than "maybe"?

I readily admit that you are much more knowledgeable than me in the areas of philosophy and formal logic, so forgive me if my proposition is weak or illogical. I try to explore all possibilities.


POWELL:
Current gender definitions are generally useful, but woman is not the set of every person that is not a man, although many people think of women in that way. If hermaphrodites had been a lot more common, perhaps we would have man / mal (penis only), woman / femal (penis + vagina), and wom / fem (vagina only).

POWELL:
He'd rather talk about commas than defend his reasons for claiming to be neither T nor not-T. Well, that's his right.

BEHERENOW:
Take three...... deep..... breaths......

It's nothing personal if he doesn't supply an answer you like.

Breathe in deeply...... breathe out slowly......


POWELL:
Ok.

Then Aristotle should either say nothing or he should admit that he didn't answer my questions rather than claim he did answer them when he didn't, don't you agree?

John Powell

[Alien]

Today @ 01:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225675#post225675)
steadele:

And yes, you are indeed a grammer nerd.

Oh dear. I'm sorry, Russ, but your blatant misspelling of "grammar" proves that you know nothing whatsoever about it. Don't you think, Russ? Eh, Russ?

Nyah, nyah, nyah.

(Just trying to get into the spirit of this thread! :teeth:)

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 04:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225773#post225773)
Alien:



Oh dear. I'm sorry, Russ, but your blatant misspelling of "grammar" proves that you know nothing whatsoever about it. Don't you think, Russ? Eh, Russ?

Nyah, nyah, nyah.

(Just trying to get into the spirit of this thread! :teeth:)

Heh. The "apparent" mispelling of grammar was done deliberately to see if anyone would catch the error.

So you passed that test....but you failed to realize that I, of course, did not make a mistake.

Sad, really. Please remember in the future that I do not make errors, but I do sometimes "fake" errors to make my opponents feel like they might actually have a chance of defeating me.

I do it all for the people.:smile:


Russ

[JardinPrayer]

:haha: :lmbo:
So, THIS is what brings atheists to TWeb!

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Aristotle, you are not impressing me. Why don't you respond point by point to my post instead of these evasions? Don't you realize that you give encouragement to apologists to play the same kinds of "bob and weave" routines rather than dealing directly with the arguments?

In an earlier post you said,

ARISTOTLE:
I have stated my answers to these questions numerous times.


POWELL:
If your statement is true, which apparently it is not, then where are the numerous places you answered my questions about your definitions of theist, atheist, agnostic, and gnostic? And, where are the numerous places where you answered my questions concerning which statement of belief and knowledge that I provided best matched your view? And, Aristotle, where are the numerous places where you answered my questions about your belief and knowledge of Santa Claus? I'd be satisfied if you even showed me where you answered them ONCE prior to making that false claim. I'd be somewhat satisfied if you answered them now.

Perhaps I should resign myself to watching you evade these questions yet another time.

Now, for the most recent evasion.

Aristotle:
ROFL :lmbo:, using a dictionary to validate philosophical ideas.


POWELL:
Why do you think it's foolish to use a dictionary to determine the meaning of a philosophical term, Aristotle? Don't dictionary writers look to philosophers for the meanings of such things?

ARISTOTLE:
Perhaps you should also consult the dictionary on what truth or beauty is.


POWELL:
That sounds like a good idea to me. How do you determine what the meanings of words are, Aristotle, if it's not by asking the experts?

What are your definitions of "truth" and "beauty," Aristotle? I won't be holding my breath for you to answer this because it's evidently your method to evade my questions.

ARISTOTLE:
I did decide however to make certain that you understand what belief is according to the dictionary:


POWELL:
Good. At least you decided to deal with part of my post. However, why did you choose to not respond to all of my post without giving a good reason for the omission? Why have you been evading important points of my posts from the very beginning? Why do you pick and choose the parts you think support you, but refuse to respond to those that don't? This is what mediocre inerrancy apologists do.

ARISTOTLE:
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.

2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.

3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.


POWELL:
Which dictionary did you get these definitions from, Aristotle? Don't you believe in properly referencing your quotations?

ARISTOTLE:
Definition number two seems to be extremely relative to what Russell was talking about. Since if one can know then an argument or proof would be an instance of validity in that premiss.


POWELL:
It sure is relevant to the discussion. It helps to show that you're wrong.

It says that belief is "mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something." It means that belief is accepting something as true, or being actual, or being valid and that belief is having a conviction that the thing is true, actual, or valid.

Where does definition #2 refer to KNOWLEDGE about the thing being true, actual, or valid, Aristotle? Belief is not necessarily KNOWING that something is true or actual or valid.

ARISTOTLE
Knowledge does define belief.


POWELL:
Knowledge is related to belief, but knowledge does not define belief. As you yourself said, "There is a major difference between knowledge and belief."

One can have belief that something is true, actual, or valid without knowing that it is true, actual, or valid.

ARISTOTLE:
After all, your knowledge leads you to believe that your definitions are the only true definitions.


POWELL:
If you KNOW that X is the correct definition then, yes, you should BELIEVE that X the correct definition. However, if you merely believe that X is the correct definition, it does not necessarily follow that you know that X is the correct definition. You should believe what you know to be true, but you need not know to be true what you merely believe to be true.

If you had answered my questions when I first asked them rather than evading them and falsely claiming you had answered them then I could have made this clear earlier.

ARISTOTLE:
In the case of a belief, if I accept what I believe on the grounds of which I declare to be the most truthfully fundamental arguments, then it is ok. Since it is is my belief and right to do so.


POWELL:
You're getting confusing, Aristotle. To say "if I accept what I believe" is equivalent to saying "if I believe what I believe" or "if I accept what I accept" and, therefore, unnecessarily redundant. Go back and look at definition #2. Also, what you mean by "if I . . . believe on the grounds of which I declare to be the most truthfully fundamental arguments" is unclear. Would you please rewrite your first sentence so it's more clear?

Perhaps you're an agnostic because you don't know what "believe" means and you have difficulty writing coherent sentences.

ARISTOTLE:
Not to mention that my belief is based on the knowledge which I hold.


POWELL:
If you know that God exists then you should believe that God exists, yes. However, you don't seem to realize, Aristotle, that people can believe things are true that they don't know are true.

If you had answered my questions early on rather than evading them and falsely claiming to have answered them then I could have explained this to you earlier on.

ARISTOTLE:
If you are implying that my beliefs are wrong based on my supposedly improper knowledge of the subject, you only aquiesce [sic] Russell's argument that knowledge is that fundamental basis and classification of belief.


POWELL:
Nice try, Aristotle, but such a turn around does not follow.

I'm claiming your beliefs concerning the definitions of theist, atheist, agnostic, and gnostic are probably unwise (I can't be sure because you won't give them) because they probably differ with the wisest definitions available. In other words, your beliefs are wrong because they differ from the beliefs of the experts and you have not shown good reasons to distrust the experts in this case.

I'm claiming your refusal to accept the designation of atheist is wrong because you are an atheist, you are a person who does not believe in the existence of God. You admitted it yourself when you claimed to have no beliefs about God's existence.

ARISTOTLE:
I've said this before. I am agnosic [sic] meaning I have no belief.


POWELL:
You claimed to have no belief, meaning relative to the existence of God. Unfortunately, you are mistaken that an "agnosic" is someone who has no belief concerning the existence of God. An agnostic is someone who does not KNOW or someone who believes that knowing is impossible or is ignorant or something like that. Agnosticism in our context is about knowledge about God's existence, not about belief about God's existence.

ARISTOTLE:
BeHereNow: Commas aren't the only thing wrong with me! Apparently typos make meh unsmartness. I is knowing whats I's talkin bouts! Mah dgos braks ta casr! :lmbo:


POWELL:
When you demonstrate you understand what a theist, atheist, agnostic, and gnostic is then perhaps you can feel more secure in your "smartness". Otherwise, perhaps it's wise to declare your ignorance, your agnosticism, about such things.

John Powell

[John Powell]

ALIEN:
Oh dear. I'm sorry, Russ, but your blatant misspelling of "grammar" proves that you know nothing whatsoever about it. Don't you think, Russ? Eh, Russ?

Nyah, nyah, nyah.

(Just trying to get into the spirit of this thread! )


POWELL:
No, that's deductively fallacious, Alien. To match my usage, you should have said something more like:

A person who can't spell "grammar" probably hasn't studied its meanings as carefully as someone who can spell it properly, wouldn't you agree, Russ?

John Powell

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 07:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225902#post225902)
John Powell:
POWELL:
No, that's deductively fallacious, Alien. To match my usage, you should have said something more like:

A person who can't spell "grammar" probably hasn't studied its meanings as carefully as someone who can spell it properly, wouldn't you agree, Russ?

John Powell

:bonk: Alien!!! You should have qualified your argument as an inductive one. You should know better....especially when "you know who" is watching :shy:

Now on to Powells question......

I did it on purpose, of course. I have become so good at "faking" mistakes (to make the general population feel more comfortable around me) that now it almost seems like I ACTUALLY DO make mistakes.

Sometimes I almost believe it myself......but then I remember that Im the best.

I think you and Alien have committed..... The Steadele Fallacy!!!


Russ

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I'm happy when I BELIEVE that Russ agrees with me even though I may not KNOW that he does.

John Powell

[Alien]

Today @ 02:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225778#post225778)
steadele:

Sad, really. Please remember in the future that I do not make errors, but I do sometimes &quot;fake&quot; errors to make my opponents feel like they might actually have a chance of defeating me.

I do it all for the people.:smile:


Russ

You are so selfless, Russ!

:teeth:

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 08:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=226008#post226008)
John Powell:

POWELL:
I'm happy when I BELIEVE that Russ agrees with me even though I may not KNOW that he does.

John Powell

Oh man..........:rofl: That was a good one John. I like how you threw that in there:thumb:

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 09:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=226023#post226023)
Alien:



You are so selfless, Russ!

:teeth:

I know....its touching really....:sad:


:bunny: :smile:

[Alien]

Today @ 05:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225902#post225902)
John Powell:

POWELL:
No, that's deductively fallacious, Alien. To match my usage, you should have said something more like:

A person who can't spell &quot;grammar&quot; probably hasn't studied its meanings as carefully as someone who can spell it properly, wouldn't you agree, Russ?

John Powell

<groan> Yes, I should have taken the trouble to study your style more carefully and maybe copied one of your sentences and just changed the relevant words. In fact I definitely should have done so.

While we're on the subject, though, can you defend the connection you have suggested between the incorrect spelling of certain words (typos really, as Aristotle has spelled "agnostic" correctly more often than he has misspelled it, demonstrating that he can spell it correctly if he wants to) and the careful or otherwise study of the meanings of the words in question? I see no obvious connection, logical or otherwise.

[India]

steadele:
Heh. The &quot;apparent&quot; mispelling of grammar was done deliberately to see if anyone would catch the error.

So you passed that test....but you failed to realize that I, of course, did not make a mistake.

Sad, really. Please remember in the future that I do not make errors, but I do sometimes &quot;fake&quot; errors to make my opponents feel like they might actually have a chance of defeating me.

I do it all for the people.:smile:


:lol: Russ, your sense of humor is nearly identical to my husband's, except his phrase is, "You're wrong!" instead of "You're a moron!" One time we were driving somewhere and he thought where we were going was in location A, then changed his mind and thought it was in location B, then later realized he was right the first time, so now he says, "I'm always right, and the one time I was wrong it was because I was right!"

[Socrates]

India: "God loves geckos too"

Sure does! That's why he went to the trouble of designing their feet in such a special way, which humans have only begun to emulate, so they can stick to surfaces using van der Waals attractions. See Great gecko glue? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/gecko.asp)

[Aristotle]

Tell me if this is a proper use of commas:
I, the king of England, Sir Albert Hitchcock, who is the son of Alfred Einstein, who was the son of Sir William Clinton, who was the husband of Lady Cockroach, who was the daughter of Lady Chocolate of Hershey, will, unless pointed out otherwise, forever, unless I die before then, be a witless toenail!

Powel:
I say I have answered your questions, all though maybe not directly, it was implied when i said I am agnostic. I am not really concerned whether or not you accept that I am agnostic or not, but thats your problem, not mine. I say I am agnostic for reasons important to me, which is why I have refused to take part in some willy nilly discussion covering any area of the topic that concerns you with what I think. Any responses made were meant solely for my entertainment of seeing you act like a three year old child that swears they are so sure that Superman is real that they even wear their underpants over their pants. My goal is to seek the truth for myself, not others. Whether you are concerned with persuing truth for yourself or pointing out the faults in others (the latter being more likely), I could care less. My goal is to seek ideas and to determine for myself what is true and what isn't. Perhaps you do not realize the major point of Philosophy, which is more then fulfilling selfish desires of proving oneself as intellectually superior. Philosophy is about self-enrichment of knowledge and life through exploration, not through arguments or tasteless discourses to show oneself as more knowledgable. You may continue on with how I possess fractured knowledge because our ideas fail to be concurrent. But I can tell you that you are the only one that is speaking and listening to your arguments concerning the subject from now on.

[Warcraft3]

Yesterday @ 10:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=226082#post226082)
India:



:lol: Russ, your sense of humor is nearly identical to my husband's, except his phrase is, &quot;You're wrong!&quot; instead of &quot;You're a moron!&quot; One time we were driving somewhere and he thought where we were going was in location A, then changed his mind and thought it was in location B, then later realized he was right the first time, so now he says, &quot;I'm always right, and the one time I was wrong it was because I was right!&quot;

I like him already. :smile:

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 12:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=226187#post226187)
Aristotle:

Tell me if this is a proper use of commas:
I, the king of England, Sir Albert Hitchcock, who is the son of Alfred Einstein, who was the son of Sir William Clinton, who was the husband of Lady Cockroach, who was the daughter of Lady Chocolate of Hershey, will, unless pointed out otherwise, forever, unless I die before then, be a witless toenail!

Comma..................overload..................head............hurting.............
:stars:

[John Powell]

ALIEN:
While we're on the subject, though, can you defend the connection you have suggested between the incorrect spelling of certain words (typos really, as Aristotle has spelled "agnostic" correctly more often than he has misspelled it, demonstrating that he can spell it correctly if he wants to) and the careful or otherwise study of the meanings of the words in question?


POWELL:
Sure.

ALIEN:
I see no obvious connection, logical or otherwise.


POWELL:
How so? If two people are arguing an issue of definitions and one person demonstrates correct spelling and the other does not wouldn't you think that the better writer PROBABLY is more experienced, more knowledgeable about the definitions?

If I ask Aristotle for his definitions of things like atheist and agnostic, but he misspells those words, wouldn't that give you some reason to be slightly more skeptical of his claims?

It's not a deductively valid conclusion, of course, since a bad speller might actually have the correct beliefs despite the typos, but it's inductively indicative, wouldn't you say?

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Well, I've given up on you for now, Aristotle. You clearly know how to insulate yourself from dealing with logical persuasion. In my opinion, you're not much different than a theist who holds to their faith, not because they believe they have adequately rebutted the logical arguments of skeptics, but because of emotional reasons private to themselves such as adoration of certain authorities.

If you change your mind and decide you want to overcome your self-proclaimed ignorance (i.e. agnosticism), let me know.

John Powell

[BeHereNow]

John Powell:

POWELL:
If you define man as a person having male genitalia then everything that is not a person with male genitalia would be "not man". A person with both male and female genitalia would be a man based on that definition.

Does testosterone or estrogen fit into your definition of man and woman? If a man were to have male and female genitalia, but have a female proportion of estrogen and testosterone, would s/he be fully man, or fully not-man? Why isn't "partially man" an option?

POWELL:
If you define a man as someone with male genitalia, but not female genitalia, then a hermaphrodite is not a man.

So how do we define "man", then? Shall I choose whichever definition best fits my argument, or do we reach an agreement on what "man" is?

POWELL:
Current gender definitions are generally useful, but woman is not the set of every person that is not a man, although many people think of women in that way. If hermaphrodites had been a lot more common, perhaps we would have man / mal (penis only), woman / femal (penis + vagina), and wom / fem (vagina only).

(quick nitpick - gender and sex are not interchangeable terms. I assume we are talking about the biological sex of a hermaphrodite, not their socially ascribed gender.)

Now, then. Per the quote above, do you see my analogy? It lacks in that hermaphrodites are not so common that we need such strict categories, but with religion there is so much variance that we do have such categories. As we discovered earlier, a definition is useful, but not strict, and therefore leaves room for partialities. IOW, not T, but not quite not-T.

POWELL:
Ok.

Then Aristotle should either say nothing or he should admit that he didn't answer my questions rather than claim he did answer them when he didn't, don't you agree?

John Powell

I'm neutral.

:bunny:

[BeHereNow]

Socrates:

India: "God loves geckos too"

Sure does! That's why he went to the trouble of designing their feet in such a special way, which humans have only begun to emulate, so they can stick to surfaces using van der Waals attractions. See Great gecko glue? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/gecko.asp)

*WHOOP* *WHOOP* *WHOOP*

Gratuitous AiG promotion alert!

*WHOOP* *WHOOP* *WHOOP*

:spam:

[BeHereNow]

Aristotle:

Tell me if this is a proper use of commas:
I, the king of England, Sir Albert Hitchcock, who is the son of Alfred Einstein, who was the son of Sir William Clinton, who was the husband of Lady Cockroach, who was the daughter of Lady Chocolate of Hershey, will, unless pointed out otherwise, forever, unless I die before then, be a witless toenail!


Well, well, Aristotle the textual aesthetician! Your commas are fine, but I'd question your usage of the term "who is" as highlighted in blue.

:cheers:

steadele:

Heh. The "apparent" mispelling of grammar was done deliberately to see if anyone would catch the error.

So you passed that test....but you failed to realize that I, of course, did not make a mistake.

Sad, really. Please remember in the future that I do not make errors, but I do sometimes "fake" errors to make my opponents feel like they might actually have a chance of defeating me.

I do it all for the people.:smile:


Russ

Sounds like Russ has been taking personality pointers from Yahweh. :eek:

[Aristotle]

While the grammar nerd is still in the office for the day, how would I use a semicolon?

[JardinPrayer]

I guess I did give permission to hijack the thread for grammar lessons...but now geckos, too?

Sheesh.
:garden:

[John Powell]

POWELL:
If you define man as a person having male genitalia then everything that is not a person with male genitalia would be "not man". A person with both male and female genitalia would be a man based on that definition. ”

BEHERENOW:
Does testosterone or estrogen fit into your definition of man and woman?


POWELL:
Not if it's solely based on genotype.

BEHERENOW:
If a man were to have male and female genitalia, but have a female proportion of estrogen and testosterone, would s/he be fully man, or fully not-man? Why isn't "partially man" an option?


POWELL:
One can speak of "fully man" and "partially man" just like one can speak of man. Then, however you define "partially man" anything that is the logical NOT of that definition is not "partially man."

POWELL:
If you define a man as someone with male genitalia, but not female genitalia, then a hermaphrodite is not a man.

BEHERENOW:
So how do we define "man", then? Shall I choose whichever definition best fits my argument, or do we reach an agreement on what "man" is?


POWELL:
For the sake of communication we should seek agreement. We should look to the experts of fields like biology and sociology for guidance.

How do biologists define "man." How do sociologists?

We should, however, also be sensitive to the wishes of those who might fall out of a category they wish to be included in. If an XY individual takes hormones and has a sex organ operation and wishes to be considered a legal or social man, then we should seriously consider that.

POWELL:
Current gender definitions are generally useful, but woman is not the set of every person that is not a man, although many people think of women in that way. If hermaphrodites had been a lot more common, perhaps we would have man / mal (penis only), woman / femal (penis + vagina), and wom / fem (vagina only).

BEHERENOW:
(quick nitpick - gender and sex are not interchangeable terms. I assume we are talking about the biological sex of a hermaphrodite, not their socially ascribed gender.)


POWELL:
I was speaking of their gender, not their sexual practices. There is typically a tie between the ability to have sex and gender identification, but this is more often a problem in the initial stages of loss of ability rather than a permanent association. A man who loses the ability for one reason or another initially feels somehow not a real man, but this psychological problem resolves itself in healthy individuals. Women suffer their own trauma.

BEHERENOW:
Now, then. Per the quote above, do you see my analogy?


POWELL:
What analogy? Between a hermaphrodite and an agnostic? The better analogy would be that of an XX individual with the physical features characteristic of women, but who claims to be neither man nor woman because her world famous guru claims to be neither and because she doesn't undersand what defines a woman and in order to take a neutral position in the gender fight.

BEHERENOW:
It lacks in that hermaphrodites are not so common that we need such strict categories, but with religion there is so much variance that we do have such categories. As we discovered earlier, a definition is useful, but not strict, and therefore leaves room for partialities. IOW, not T, but not quite not-T.


POWELL:
You still don't understand. Once you define T then everything that is the logical NOT of that definition is not T.

If "agnostic" is a person who is neither a theist nor an atheist then every person who is either a theist or an atheist is not an agnostic.

The problem with this definition for agnostic is the definitions of theist and atheist are already all inclusive. Every person is one or the other. To make room for the agnostic in between is an unwise alteration of a good word for a bad purpose. Agnostic comes from a Greek word having to do with knowledge, not belief. So it's a mistake to throw away that meaning and ascribe to it a needless new definition associated with belief. It makes more sense to retain its etymological meaning so one can speak of believers who don't know (agnostic theists) and nonbelievers who don't know (agnostic atheists). It makes the language more rich rather than more confused.

POWELL:
Ok.

Then Aristotle should either say nothing or he should admit that he didn't answer my questions rather than claim he did answer them when he didn't, don't you agree?

BEHERENOW:
I'm neutral.

:bunny:


POWELL:
Ok.

John Powell

[JardinPrayer]

Although John Powell doesn't often make direct references to any of the humorous posts in this thread, it has become clear - to my great relief - that he does have a sense of humor under that somewhat erudite and ever-so-slightly anal retentive exterior!

John Powell:

POWELL:
I'm happy when I BELIEVE that Russ agrees with me even though I may not KNOW that he does.

John Powell

*Don't ever change, JP!

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 02:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=227105#post227105)
JardinPrayer:

Although John Powell doesn't often make direct references to any of the humorous posts in this thread, it has become clear - to my great relief - that he does have a sense of humor under that somewhat erudite and ever-so-slightly anal retentive exterior!



*Don't ever change, JP!

Oh yes...John definately has a sense of humor, but I think we often miss the joke because he usually slips it into a comment unexpectedly.

A few times I read a post by him and I could have sworn that I saw a comment that was humorous in a subtle (in fact a few times it was hidden deep in a serious argument) kind of way.

I now look for those things in his posts, but I still have to read it twice sometimes to catch it.

But I usually do catch it now.:smile:


Russ

[JardinPrayer]

Russ...think we can get him to let his hair down in the dorm?

Now look at me...hijacking my own thread! Back to commas immediately!

:gardendevil:

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 03:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=227150#post227150)
JardinPrayer:

Russ...think we can get him to let his hair down in the dorm?

Now look at me...hijacking my own thread! Back to commas immediately!

:gardendevil:

:lol: Well the dorm thing might be very difficult....he rarely makes posts that dont require alot of thought to make. We could always try though.:smile:

:whack: :bonk:

Commas it is.



,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,



Russ

[Aristotle]

I thought it was about trout 0_o Looks like I am lagging behind :hrm:

[Alien]

Today @ 12:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=226267#post226267)
John Powell:
POWELL:
It's not a deductively valid conclusion, of course, since a bad speller might actually have the correct beliefs despite the typos, but it's inductively indicative, wouldn't you say?


I think we have to be very careful when drawing such conclusions. I grew up at a time and in a place where correct spelling (and grammar) was considered to be very important. I suspect you did too, though I must be careful not to commit the same error of assumption that I am suggesting is occurring with spelling. In school, my spelling mistakes were marked in red and I had to write each one out ten times! I now wonder if spelling and grammar was considered to be more important than the actual content of the piece. As a result I am somewhat anal about spelling and tend to assume that bad spellers are less intelligent or educated than I.

I believe that this emphasis has not applied to all times and places, hence my hesitation to make such a judgment, or rather to rethink any such that I may make.

You also seem to have overlooked my point that A's spelling mistakes were occasional rather than consistent, suggesting that his deficiency might be in proofreading rather than spelling ability.

[India]

JardinPrayer:
I guess I did give permission to hijack the thread for grammar lessons...but now geckos, too?


But geckos are cuter and more interesting than commas.

And I thought Socrates' link was interesting (so there, BHN! :tongue:)

[JardinPrayer]

India:

But geckos are cuter and more interesting than commas.

Indeed they are. This thread is now officially about geckos...atheist geckos, in fact...and what brings them to TWeb! All of you...get back on topic right now!
:gardendevil:

[India]

Thank you, Jardin. This is an important topic that raises some very important issues:

Are all atheists geckos?

If an atheist is a gecko, is he still going to hell in a handbasket?

If a gecko is an atheist, can Christians still keep it as a pet?

Are the geckos at TWeb causing more bugs than they eat?

Is it moral or immoral to cook and eat geckos?

[Aristotle]

I know how to spell, I am just to impatient to proof read. Having tremors doesn't help my accurate typing either :shifty:

[JardinPrayer]

Aw, John, look...you've given Aristotle tremors, for goodness sake!
Why not lay off him for a while and tell us your definition of gecko and what separates a gecko from a salamandar (or from a gila monster for that matter), and how their perception of God might affect their suitability for eating, keeping as pets, or their own immortal souls?

[John Powell]

POWELL:
It's not a deductively valid conclusion, of course, since a bad speller might actually have the correct beliefs despite the typos, but it's inductively indicative, wouldn't you say?

ALIEN:
I think we have to be very careful when drawing such conclusions. I grew up at a time and in a place where correct spelling (and grammar) was considered to be very important. I suspect you did too, though I must be careful not to commit the same error of assumption that I am suggesting is occurring with spelling. In school, my spelling mistakes were marked in red and I had to write each one out ten times! I now wonder if spelling and grammar was considered to be more important than the actual content of the piece. As a result I am somewhat anal about spelling and tend to assume that bad spellers are less intelligent or educated than I.

I believe that this emphasis has not applied to all times and places, hence my hesitation to make such a judgment, or rather to rethink any such that I may make.


POWELL:
Good points. My mother was an English teacher.

It may surprise you that I've come to the conclusion that English should be revamped so that words spell the way they sound. This will hopefully help solidify its future as the language of the world. Until that's agreed upon, however, I use spelling as one of the methods to help determine the logical ability of my opponent. A bad writer tends to be a bad thinker. A careless writer tends to be a careless thinker.

When you see me make mistakes it's a sign I'm thinking more carelessly than usual, I'm more in a hurry.

ALIEN:
You also seem to have overlooked my point that A's spelling mistakes were occasional rather than consistent, suggesting that his deficiency might be in proofreading rather than spelling ability.


POWELL:
Your point is a good one. There's a distinct difference between someone who occasionally makes spelling errors (even Farrell does that) and someone who does so repeatedly. My criticisms of Aristotle on that regard were more an effort to grab at whatever I could to encourage him to recognize his own fallibility and the possibility, however small it might be, that I might be right and his world famous hero might be wrong. My efforts apparently failed.

John Powell

[John Powell]

INDIA:
Thank you, Jardin. This is an important topic that raises some very important issues:

Are all atheists geckos?


POWELL:
No.

INDIA:
If an atheist is a gecko, is he still going to hell in a handbasket?


POWELL:
Not necessarily, it might be some other way.

INDIA:
If a gecko is an atheist, can Christians still keep it as a pet?


POWELL:
Yes. The relevant question is whether they would be morally justified in doing so.

INDIA:
Are the geckos at TWeb causing more bugs than they eat?


POWELL:
If there are geckos at TWEB then it's probably true since there are bugs at TWEB, possibly some caused by geckos, yet none of the bugs can be eaten by the geckos.

INDIA:
Is it moral or immoral to cook and eat geckos?


POWELL:
Yes, by the logical law of the excluded middle.

I hope Russ and others have a few laughs.

John Powell

[John Powell]

JARDINPRAYER:
Aw, John, look...you've given Aristotle tremors, for goodness sake!


POWELL:
Aristotle is doing fine. The chances of him staying are increasing. You're helping to make it fun.

JARDINPRAYER:
Why not lay off him for a while and tell us your definition of gecko and what separates a gecko from a salamandar (or from a gila monster for that matter), and how their perception of God might affect their suitability for eating, keeping as pets, or their own immortal souls?


POWELL:
Here are some definitions from www.dictionary.com.

American Heritage Dictionary:

Gecko
Any of various usually small tropical and subtropical lizards of the family Gekkonidae, having toes padded with setae containing numerous suction cups that enable them to climb on vertical surfaces.

Salamander
Any of various small lizardlike amphibians of the order Caudata, having porous scaleless skin and four, often weak or rudimentary legs.

Gila Monster
A venomous lizard (Heloderma suspectum) of arid regions of the southwest United States and western Mexico, having black and orange or yellow scales.


POWELL:
We have gila monsters in Arizona. My sister caught one and we took a picture of her. She seems to have some of the same animal abilities that my grandfather had. Grandpa Eddie could play with wild rattle snakes around his neck.

I've wondered what animals might think. I also wonder what ancient people would think if they were transported to modern times. They'd be scared at first, no doubt.

Mormons believe that animals have spirits and will all go to the celestial kingdom. It's only people who can blow it.

John Powell

[JardinPrayer]

At first? Heck, I'm often scared and I've been here all along!

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 01:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=227830#post227830)
John Powell:



POWELL:
No.



POWELL:
Not necessarily, it might be some other way.



POWELL:
Yes. The relevant question is whether they would be morally justified in doing so.



POWELL:
If there are geckos at TWEB then it's probably true since there are bugs at TWEB, possibly some caused by geckos, yet none of the bugs can be eaten by the geckos.



POWELL:
Yes, by the logical law of the excluded middle.

I hope Russ and others have a few laughs.

John Powell

:lol: I did John. That was funny :cheers:

And even in the humor you still made good points:thumb: Another job well done by Powell.


Russ

[Alien]

Yesterday @ 11:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=227823#post227823)
John Powell:

POWELL:
Good points. My mother was an English teacher.

Aha! :smile:

It may surprise you that I've come to the conclusion that English should be revamped so that words spell the way they sound. This will hopefully help solidify its future as the language of the world.

A little, yes. I would expect you to be as meticulous about the new spelling as about the old, however. :smile:

How about going the entire "1984" route and removing irregular constructions also? Double plus ungood?


POWELL:
My efforts apparently failed.

You can't win them all.

BTW, concerning geckos and atheism .... do you define non-human animals and inanimate objects as atheist (they are "not theist")? This is an old debate as I'm sure you know, but I was wondering where you stood on it.

[India]

POWELL:
No.


Ah, but are all geckos atheists?



POWELL:
Not necessarily, it might be some other way.


:smile:


POWELL:
Yes. The relevant question is whether they would be morally justified in doing so.


Sorry, that's what I meant.



POWELL:
Yes, by the logical law of the excluded middle.


I hate it when my binary logic is ruined by third options! :vulcan: :whack:

[Alien]

I'm thinking that atheist geckos would pine and die in the religious atmosphere of a Christian home. So yes, it would be immoral for Christians to keep them as pets.

(Or would the Christians just send them up the wall?)

:teeth:

Hmmmm, should we start a new thread on "should pets be equally yoked with their owners"?

And .... salamanders (the mythical variety at least) should be quite comfortable in hell.

[JardinPrayer]

As India points out every time she posts, God loves geckos, too. So, providing a good Christian home where they might hear the Good News and be saved is probably the most loving thing we could do for them.

They hear, don't they? If not, the heck with 'em. Kill them all and let God sort them out. (Except the one that does the Geico commercials...seems he's makeing an appropriate contribution to society.)

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Good points. My mother was an English teacher.

ALIEN:
Aha!

POWELL:
It may surprise you that I've come to the conclusion that English should be revamped so that words spell the way they sound. This will hopefully help solidify its future as the language of the world.

ALIEN:
A little, yes. I would expect you to be as meticulous about the new spelling as about the old, however.


POWELL:
Of course.

POWELL:
How about going the entire "1984" route and removing irregular constructions also? Double plus ungood?


POWELL:
Sounds bad.

POWELL:
My efforts apparently failed.

ALIEN:
You can't win them all.


POWELL:
But I do win some. :wink:

ALIEN:
BTW, concerning geckos and atheism .... do you define non-human animals and inanimate objects as atheist (they are "not theist")? This is an old debate as I'm sure you know, but I was wondering where you stood on it.


POWELL:
Well, I think of theist and atheist restricted to persons. Intelligent extraterrestrials could also count. Chimps could count if we learn to talk to them about such things. Presumably angels and devils would be theists if one counts them.

Logically, however, you're right, anything that isn't a theist is a not theist. However, if an atheist is defined as "a person who . . ." then that excludes things like geckos and rocks.

John Powell

[India]

JardinPrayer:
They hear, don't they? If not, the heck with 'em. Kill them all and let God sort them out. (Except the one that does the Geico commercials...seems he's makeing an appropriate contribution to society.)

:lol:

[BeHereNow]

Aristotle:

While the grammar nerd is still in the office for the day, how would I use a semicolon?

Semicolons are used when you need to join two indedpendent clauses as a complete thought. So, both halves of the semicolon need to have at least subject and verb. Semicolons are rarely used, and when they are its usually inappropriate.

:thumb:

[BeHereNow]

John Powell:

It may surprise you that I've come to the conclusion that English should be revamped so that words spell the way they sound.

:shocked:

Do mine eyes deceive me?!?! Powell, siding with the proles! AAAAHHHHHH!!!!! :flaming:

Here's a few things about spelling:

1. Spelling is based on the meaning of a word, or etymology. We don't spell a word how it sounds, we sound a word how it's spelled. If we take that away, we take away the importance of etymology, the Latin/Greek/etc. heritage of our words, and really the entire meaning behind the language.

2. People pronounce words differently. Are we to have five different spellings of the word "dog" just because some people pronounce it "dahw" and others pronounce it "doge" (long "o")? No way!

3. The meaning of a word can usually be found in the spelling. If you don't know what "converse" means, but you do know what the con and verse roots mean, you can figure it out based on the spelling. Most multisyllabic words in English are simply roots added together.

Arrg ... the only thing that needs to be revamped is the way people are educated on spelling. I was hooked on phonics as a kid, and thus I have no problem with spelling. It's not that tough if you really want to learn it.


Powell: sorry for not responding to your other post about hermaphrodites. I'm currently not in the mental state to respond accordingly; perhaps I will respond later.

(Aristotle, did you catch the semicolon? woohoo!!!)

[John Powell]

POWELL:
It may surprise you that I've come to the conclusion that English should be revamped so that words spell the way they sound.

BEHERENOW:
Do mine eyes deceive me?!?! Powell, siding with the proles! AAAAHHHHHH!!!!!


POWELL:
I think this will help solidify its future as the world language.

BEHERENOW:
Here's a few things about spelling:

1. Spelling is based on the meaning of a word, or etymology. We don't spell a word how it sounds, we sound a word how it's spelled.


POWELL:
Here's something that a faculty member posted in the copyroom.

- - - - - - - - - -
One Reason For Students' Poor Spelling Skills?

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it
deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are
arngraed. The olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and
lsat ltteers (or sonuds) are at the rghit pclaes. The rset
can be a toatl mses, and you can sitll raed it. Tihs is
bcuseae ulsualy we do not raed ervey lteter in eevry
wrod by itslef, but rhater, in our mndis we try to
clomepte the snentece wtih wrods taht mkae snese, and
the fsirt and lsat ltetres gvie us the nercessay cules.

- - - - - - - - - -

BEHERENOW:
If we take that away, we take away the importance of etymology, the Latin/Greek/etc. heritage of our words, and really the entire meaning behind the language.


POWELL:
I would want "Fonetek Inglesh" dictionaries to still include the etymology of words.

BEHERENOW:
2. People pronounce words differently. Are we to have five different spellings of the word "dog" just because some people pronounce it "dahw" and others pronounce it "doge" (long "o")? No way!


POWELL:
Nope. Those who learn to speak correctly will have an easier time sounding out the words.

BEHERENOW:
3. The meaning of a word can usually be found in the spelling. If you don't know what "converse" means, but you do know what the con and verse roots mean, you can figure it out based on the spelling. Most multisyllabic words in English are simply roots added together.


POWELL:
Maybe not as much of that will be lost as you think.

BEHERENOW:
Arrg ... the only thing that needs to be revamped is the way people are educated on spelling. I was hooked on phonics as a kid, and thus I have no problem with spelling. It's not that tough if you really want to learn it.

Powell: sorry for not responding to your other post about hermaphrodites. I'm currently not in the mental state to respond accordingly; perhaps I will respond later.


POWELL:
No worries.

John Powell

[JardinPrayer]

POWELL:
I think this will help solidify its future as the world language.

That's the second time you've made this statement in this thread; is there some doubt about the future of the English language?

(BeHereNow: Did I use the semicolon correctly?)

[BeHereNow]

John Powell:

POWELL:
Here's something that a faculty member posted in the copyroom.

- - - - - - - - - -
One Reason For Students' Poor Spelling Skills?

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it
deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are
arngraed. The olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and
lsat ltteers (or sonuds) are at the rghit pclaes. The rset
can be a toatl mses, and you can sitll raed it. Tihs is
bcuseae ulsualy we do not raed ervey lteter in eevry
wrod by itslef, but rhater, in our mndis we try to
clomepte the snentece wtih wrods taht mkae snese, and
the fsirt and lsat ltetres gvie us the nercessay cules.

- - - - - - - - - -

While this is technically correct, in that it can be read, it was certainly a difficult read and took longer than if it had been spelled correctly.

POWELL:
I would want "Fonetek Inglesh" dictionaries to still include the etymology of words.

Ok, see, this is a perfect example of why we shouldn't spell words the way they sound. It looks like Fonetek should be pronounced "phone-tech" or "fon-E-tick" and Inglesh looks like "In-glesh" with a soft "i". Very confusing.

POWELL:
Nope. Those who learn to speak correctly will have an easier time sounding out the words.

Speak correctly? You are talking about making it a "world language," which necessarily means accents will be applied. The spellings of "dog" that I listed are just different accents in America.

Why not just learn to spell correctly? It's much easier.

POWELL:
Maybe not as much of that will be lost as you think.

In your spelling of "phonetic" above, all was lost. :hrm: Can you imagine what would happen to "conscience" and "conscious"? They would become one word! I've actually seen "conscience" spelled as "conshus" before. I almost threw up.

JardinPrayer:

That's the second time you've made this statement in this thread; is there some doubt about the future of the English language?

(BeHereNow: Did I use the semicolon correctly?)

aaaahhhh.... aaahhhhhhh...... *rubbing my chin*

aaaaaahhhhh...

I would say no. Your clauses were actually complete separate thoughts, so the semicolon was superfluous. I really feel like I'm missing something here about semicolon usage, but I can't put my finger on it. I believe it has something to do with both clauses pertaining to the same subject, or perhaps the semicolon is supposed to be used when a sentence needs multiple subject+verb clauses. ARrrrrg... .. my memory fails me.

SUMMON JOHN RANSOM!!!

[John Powell]

BEHERENOW:
While this is technically correct, in that it can be read, it was certainly a difficult read and took longer than if it had been spelled correctly.


POWELL:
It was not nearly as difficult as one might have expected. It took me about twice as long to read.

POWELL:
I would want "Fonetek Inglesh" dictionaries to still include the etymology of words.

BEHERENOW:
Ok, see, this is a perfect example of why we shouldn't spell words the way they sound. It looks like Fonetek should be pronounced "phone-tech" or "fon-E-tick" and Inglesh looks like "In-glesh" with a soft "i". Very confusing.


POWELL:
It's not that confusing. It's unwise to use e's after consonants to indicate the earlier vowel is long. "a" = ah, "e" = eh, "i" = ee, "o" = oh, and "u" = oo, "ai" = the vowel sound in "eight." Isn't this about what you would expect?

POWELL:
Nope. Those who learn to speak correctly will have an easier time sounding out the words.

BEHERENOW:
Speak correctly? You are talking about making it a "world language," which necessarily means accents will be applied. The spellings of "dog" that I listed are just different accents in America.


POWELL:
Given the world-wide scale of programming like CNN, I don't think this would be a problem. Just make sure newcasters speak proper International.

BEHERENOW:
Why not just learn to spell correctly? It's much easier.


POWELL:
I don't think so. People learn to speak before they learn to spell. If words are spelled the way they sound, learning to spell would be much easier.

POWELL:
Maybe not as much of that will be lost as you think.

BEHERENOW:
In your spelling of "phonetic" above, all was lost.


POWELL:
I don't think so. You did not use the expected phonetic conversion.

BEHERENOW:
Can you imagine what would happen to "conscience" and "conscious"? They would become one word! I've actually seen "conscience" spelled as "conshus" before. I almost threw up.


POWELL:
Kanchens. Kanshes. Do you need a bag?

John Powell

[Queen]

What brings an atheist to Tweb?

For me it was an article about homosexuality.....I wanted to have the change to share my opinion.

Now I am here I see so many intersesting discussions, and the fact that I am an atheist doesn't mean I am not interested in the spiritual part of life....

Those evulotion discussions are yummy too....so many people, as there are opinions.... :teeth:

LOLAS,
Queen

[Harlequin Solit]

For me it was to argue with whoever I come across about whatever they like about philosophy, religion, sexuality, etc. Come on! :fight:

lol... Yeah, but there are some nice members here too, and if you can stand my OTT sarcasm, we'll get along fine. :smile: