On atheistic grammar, usage, and spelling

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
On atheistic grammar, usage, and spelling

I find one habit of many atheist posters on this and other fora to be annoying, mostly because I am an editor, and therefore a stickler for grammar by vocation. I recently read on these boards an essay (I presume by a high-school student) for school on why that person would not be a Christian. Fine as far as that goes, and perhaps a bit cheeky, as that would likely ruffle the feathers of some teachers in this nation.

However, the essay does show up the tendency of some atheists to "belittle by proxy" religious views, especially Christian ones.

Take that word "Christian." I don't know how many times I have seen it written as "christian."

Similarly, "the bible" is ofttimes lower-cased.

In English Grammar, titles of religious sects or books are capitalized. Always. I presume that some atheists lower-case The Bible as a visual display of their disdain for that book, from a belief it is myth, fiction, &c. But the same folk would not presume to rewrite the rules of grammar for other books they consider to be fictional, such as Airport, or The Hobbit.

I have even run into this tendency in my job, where I then have to politely point out to the author "The Bible" is the title of a book. Regardless of whether one believes what is in it, it is still the title of a book.

And yet many of the same atheists will hold forth on how uninformed a particular Christian apologist is by pointing out flaws in spelling or grammar.

What setting The Bible's title in lower-case does show is a lack of understanding, or disdain, of the rules of English grammar. It has nothing to do with religion. Lower-casing the title actually takes away from whatever salient point the atheist is trying to make. Consider: if the atheist cannot be bothered with even getting grammar and spelling right (such as xtian), what else in the post could they not be bothered with? Accuracy? Science? History?

While it might make one "feel good" inside, scoring some imaginary point system by lower-casing Christian titles or misspelling the name of the religion or sects, it also shows how petty the atheist poster really is.

Now back to the flame wars,

James.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Words are decapitalised for

Words are decapitalised for a reason. I'm not going to stop putting god in small caps. It doesn't exist, and I refuse to give it or any other religious term any credence at all. That means christians, jews, moslems, wiccans, etc. will forever remain uncapitalised. I don't give a rats ass whether you like it or not. I also don't give a rats ass whether or not my grammar, spelling, and punctuation are correct. It's better than 99% of all English speaking people I've ever met already (Editors included), and that's sufficient for me.

P.S.

Difference between the bible and Star Wars is that Star Wars never claimed itself to be TRUE stories.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi James

 

 

There are certain errors I'd prefer not to see on the boards - they usually relate to text walls and the merciless beating of cliches.

I am a petty atheist who always lower cases the bible, jesus, god, allah and muhammad and always upper cases Satan. While this may not make sense to those who didn't grow up bible-whipped, former fundies will understand well enough. There's an inherent note of respect in the use of an upper case 'God' that I'd prefer not to perpetuate. 

It's also worth bearing in mind that the English language is one of arbitrary rules. It's a hotchpotch of languages and styles that evolves like any other set of cultural mores. If I can contribute to the evolution of contrived religious titles to pygmy case, it will be my sincere pleasure. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Anymouse wrote:I find one

Anymouse wrote:

I find one habit of many atheist posters on this and other fora to be annoying, mostly because I am an editor, and therefore a stickler for grammar by vocation.

Compared to the ad nauseum parroting of mentally retarded non sequiturs like "Atheism is false", from even the most 'scholarly' apologists, I fail to see why you'd have a burr in your saddle about grammar...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3502
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Compared

redneF wrote:

Compared to the ad nauseum parroting of mentally retarded non sequiturs like "Atheism is false", from even the most 'scholarly' apologists, I fail to see why you'd have a burr in your saddle about grammar...

  Because grammar is his stock and trade ?   Everyone has pet peeves.  If he was a scientist  and he saw some lay person continually assert some grossly incorrect statement it would probably bug him as well. So what ?


Anymouse (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

There are certain errors I'd prefer not to see on the boards - they usually relate to text walls and the merciless beating of cliches.

I am a petty atheist who always lower cases the bible, jesus, god, allah and muhammad and always upper cases Satan. While this may not make sense to those who didn't grow up bible-whipped, former fundies will understand well enough. There's an inherent note of respect in the use of an upper case 'God' that I'd prefer not to perpetrate. 

It's also worth bearing in mind that the English language is one of arbitrary rules. It's a hotchpotch of languages and styles that evolves like any other cultural more. If I can contribute to the evolution of contrived religious titles to pygmy case, it will be my sincere pleasure.  

Agreed, the idea of upper case for a proper noun (such as my name, James; or the Christian god, God) denotes a certain amount of implied respect. It also denotes the word is a name.

Grammar is not about respect; it is about clarity. Jesus is a name, whether used for the character in the New Testament of some fellow from Latin America.

Old rules of grammar required all nouns and frequently verbs, adverbs, and adjectives to be placed in upper case: the Rules were Gradually Relaxed as Reading was thus made Easier. If I were to Write this Post with such Archaic Capitalization, in to-day's Modern Sensibilities, those Very Capitalizations make its Sentences seem Pompous (or on the Internet shouting), but add Little of Value to their Meanings.

I do not lower case The Republican Party or Christianity even though I have no respect for either; in my opinion they are both mind-control cults. However, they do represent the titles of organizations or ideas. I want the titles and names of ideas and beliefs I hold no truck with to stand out: I want my reader to exactly identify what I refer to.

Mst ppl cn rd sntncs wtht vwls, th rgnl Hbrw lphbt dsn't hv thm; but by eliminating vowels have I made anything clearer?

Likewise, ignoring capitalization rules as they exist to-day (such as Christian, Allah, Wicca, The Bible, Republicans, or God when used as a name) seem to show disdain, but do little to add to the meaning of sentences. Lower-casing such words, as you freely admit in your sentence above: While this may not make sense to those who didn't grow up bible-whipped, former fundies will understand well enough is nothing more than an ad-hominen attack by proxy (the proxy being the intentional misuse of grammar rules).

As to "the beating of clichés": I would note that lower-casing religious names or making certain contractions like "xtian" are very much clichés on both atheist and pagan fora.

While many religious apologists use such attacks to "score points," does it actually add anything to use the same methods? - James.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You and everyone else knows

You and everyone else knows exactly what I said. THAT is the purpose of grammar. Just because some fruits decided their words should be capitalised does not make it universal requirement. Prepare to be constantly annoyed. The more you or others argue it, the more vehemently I'll make sure not to capitalise words that should not exist.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 168
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Good or bad grammar is not

Good or bad grammar is not the point of any of the discussions on this board.

Granted, if typing "bible" instead of "Bible" was the only argument people here had, then it would annoy me too.

But that isn't the case.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
In the case of 'bible" there

In the case of 'bible" there is no one version, type or thing that rightfully qualifies it as a proper name. There is the bible of automobiles, rifles, coin collecting etc.  It is used of the scripture of any religion and therefore is a common noun contrary to the tendency within Judeo-Christian Culture for it to mean a specific collection of scripture (also not capitalized). With a further understanding that there is no Christianity but a multitude of christianities it also is a common noun.  I agree that Jesus is a proper noun and usually capitalize it unless I really don't feel like making my post textually correct  grammatically, politically or otherwise. Sometimes I do not care for spelling or capitalizing at all since posting is really an attempt to get toward informal conversation in which the meaning is important and not the publishing.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I capitalize 'Christian' and

I capitalize 'Christian' and 'Bible,' as well as Muslim, Scientologist, etc.

Nowadays, I use lower case 'god' when I'm referring to the god concept in general, and I use upper case 'God' when I'm talking about the god of a specific religion.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

A curious vocation, what do you think of banana splits or split infinitives. Have you heard of the English Grammarian CURME. One of if not thy greatest English grammarian of the 20th century. He wrote a piece on German which I do not have and hope to get. 

But yes, atheists are aware of the capitaliizatoin and decapitalize it on purpose, along with using CE or BCE verses AD BC. 

Are you a Chrisitian. What denomination. Non-denominational? Then what is the leaning direction of theology.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3). 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3502
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The more you or

Vastet wrote:
The more you or others argue it, the more vehemently I'll make sure not to capitalise words that should not exist.

                     

                                  ...knock yourself out gaming god.    ( notice I didn't capitalize "gaming god " ?  Does that bug you ? )


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 168
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Are you a

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Are you a Chrisitian. What denomination. Non-denominational?

Dude's a Wiccan.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:I

butterbattle wrote:

I capitalize 'Christian' and 'Bible,' as well as Muslim, Scientologist, etc.

Nowadays, I use lower case 'god' when I'm referring to the god concept in general, and I use upper case 'God' when I'm talking about the god of a specific religion.

"God" is a title though, not someone's name. Titles aren't capitalized when they replace names. You wouldn't write "I met the President."

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Meh... I fail to see how

Meh... I fail to see how this is relevant to the point of this forum, or what our theistic association, or lack there of, has anything to do with grammar, or lack there of.

Sometimes I get annoyed at people butchering English, though, it being my second language I have made my share of mistakes.  

Also, since we're being anal, wtf is atheistic grammar, and how does it differ from theistic grammar? what is atheistic usage? Is that when you use your atheism? I think it is extremely important to be consistent when you're climbing a soap box, at least in the title of your post. 

Cheers Eye-wink

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Well, James.

Anymouse wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

There are certain errors I'd prefer not to see on the boards - they usually relate to text walls and the merciless beating of cliches.

I am a petty atheist who always lower cases the bible, jesus, god, allah and muhammad and always upper cases Satan. While this may not make sense to those who didn't grow up bible-whipped, former fundies will understand well enough. There's an inherent note of respect in the use of an upper case 'God' that I'd prefer not to perpetrate. 

It's also worth bearing in mind that the English language is one of arbitrary rules. It's a hotchpotch of languages and styles that evolves like any other cultural more. If I can contribute to the evolution of contrived religious titles to pygmy case, it will be my sincere pleasure.  

Agreed, the idea of upper case for a proper noun (such as my name, James; or the Christian god, God) denotes a certain amount of implied respect. It also denotes the word is a name.

Grammar is not about respect; it is about clarity. Jesus is a name, whether used for the character in the New Testament of some fellow from Latin America.

Old rules of grammar required all nouns and frequently verbs, adverbs, and adjectives to be placed in upper case: the Rules were Gradually Relaxed as Reading was thus made Easier. If I were to Write this Post with such Archaic Capitalization, in to-day's Modern Sensibilities, those Very Capitalizations make its Sentences seem Pompous (or on the Internet shouting), but add Little of Value to their Meanings.

I do not lower case The Republican Party or Christianity even though I have no respect for either; in my opinion they are both mind-control cults. However, they do represent the titles of organizations or ideas. I want the titles and names of ideas and beliefs I hold no truck with to stand out: I want my reader to exactly identify what I refer to.

Mst ppl cn rd sntncs wtht vwls, th rgnl Hbrw lphbt dsn't hv thm; but by eliminating vowels have I made anything clearer?

Likewise, ignoring capitalization rules as they exist to-day (such as Christian, Allah, Wicca, The Bible, Republicans, or God when used as a name) seem to show disdain, but do little to add to the meaning of sentences. Lower-casing such words, as you freely admit in your sentence above: While this may not make sense to those who didn't grow up bible-whipped, former fundies will understand well enough is nothing more than an ad-hominen attack by proxy (the proxy being the intentional misuse of grammar rules).

As to "the beating of clichés": I would note that lower-casing religious names or making certain contractions like "xtian" are very much clichés on both atheist and pagan fora.

While many religious apologists use such attacks to "score points," does it actually add anything to use the same methods? - James.

 

I'm sorry to have to disappoint you but I will continue to lower case these words at my personal whim. I am seeking to take religious figures down a peg when I lower case the word 'god' and I feel it's my prerogative to do exactly as I please. I don't think these lower casings are atheistic cliches. They obviously annoy you but that's not the same thing as repetition of a once vigorous but now tedious phrase or expression. 

I'm an editor myself and have been in the publishing industry since I was 19 and I'm now 44. As editor of a monthly magazine I am assaulted by trademarks, trade names,  product names with irritating upper casings in their midst, and all the usual marketing bumf that now passes for actual copy. I work towards flow when it comes to my professional writing and would not lower case pointedly in print. Nor would I use upper case without good reason. 

Obviously James, this is not print, it's an online forum that allows individuals to express themselves in those ways that suit them best. If you want to upper case the multifarious titles of the lord god our heavenly father, master of the universe, that's perfectly fine with me. Personally, I won't upper case the title of a cosmic murderer but you feel free. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi KTULA

Hi KTULA,

Atheistic Grammar. "Consistent" atheism is against order, objectives, grammar, and anything of the norm. Zero standard. Thus consistent atheists embrace contradiction.

Try writing a book supporting the thesis of contradiction (LOL). Is this possible?

This is what I've been saying. Atheism is so absurd, it cannot even get up off the ground.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Come on guys, using good

Come on guys, using good grammar is a art.

 

 


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Airhead

Hi Airhead,

No, grammar is via logic. While art is ALSO via logic and order, it is of a different philosophical category.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi KTULA,

Atheistic Grammar. "Consistent" atheism is against order, objectives, grammar, and anything of the norm. Zero standard. Thus consistent atheists embrace contradiction.

Try writing a book supporting the thesis of contradiction (LOL). Is this possible?

This is what I've been saying. Atheism is so absurd, it cannot even get up off the ground.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

You know what Jean? I agree with you that rational atheism should oppose objective standards.  Everything else is a complete non sequitur, just because I "embrace" relativity it doesn't mean that I have "Zero" standard.  That's a false dichotomy.  Also relativity is dependent on respecting the law of non contradiction, that you just pulled out of your ass.

Cheers on my second glass of wine Smiling , here's to you Jean!

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
There's no inherent

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Airhead,

No, grammar is via logic. While art is ALSO via logic and order, it is of a different philosophical category.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

logic in grammar, Jean. As for logic in art, I'd have thought art was an intensely subjective little monkey. You need to get your head out of your trivium...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello,

Hello Everybody on the floor and nobody will get hurt,

The Trivium? Very good Come Out With Your Hands Up. Were you at a Classical School?

KTULA, but definition, a standard is always objective and anchored down via universals so as to compare and KNOW. If all is relative (including standards), then by definiton, you cannot have a standard if it is relative. This is antithetical to what is a standard.

The law of NON-Contradiction is coined via Roman Catholicism through Aristotle. The correct way to phrase it is the law of contradiction. But since this is an absolute anchored down law, you cannot embrace this. You must be relative, and allow for contradiction.

John Cage, Jackson Polluck, Duchamp, John Jacques Rousseau. One man, Gauguin, a post Impressionist painted Rousseau's Noble Savage and tried to live it out consistently according to atheism standard. There is no order, no standard, no logic, no normative.

He drew a very famous picture regarding this. He eventually killed himself since he found a disconnect of reality regarding the practice verses the theoretical. Earnest Hemmingway shot himself in the head for similar reasons.

These men were consistent. People on here are simply playing word games. Atheistm, agnostic, weak atheist, lack of, etc.

Those that have not killed themselves with the disconnect of reality via the practical and the theoretical become very evil brutal mean such as Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Obama, etc.

For you to write a book on contradiction, how could this be possible since your writing would always contradict, thus bringing to the reader, well, nothing.

Perhaps that's the point as John Cage has been trying to say.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: If all

Jean Chauvin wrote:
If all is relative (including standards), then by definiton, you cannot have a standard if it is relative.

That's a non sequitur.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi RedNef

Hi Rednef,

I did not do a non-sequitur. It's a valid inference from the definition of relativity itself and the scope of the definition relates to the premies.

Even though I did not give a syllogistical argument. LOL.

I'm curious, would you have a beer with me if we met?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: I did

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I did not do a non-sequitur.

False.

Our universe has constants.

Constants are standards.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There are no absolute rules

There are no absolute rules of grammar. There is only usage,

We are only obliged to not use words in ways too far from the usage we expect from the category of people we are conversing with, if we desire to be understood.

Capitalizing or not of a referent to an object or a concept would be one of the 'errors' least likely to lead to misunderstanding, so I care not, except to lower-case God and the Bible as explicit marks of disrespect.

Jesus is a the name of a person, which I have no problem in always capitalizing.

If capitalization or not were so important to meaning, we would have to throw out the 'rule' of capitalizing the first word of a sentence.

And finally, 'atheistic grammar' is a nonsense.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Funnily enough

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

If capitalization or not were so important to meaning, we would have to throw out the 'rule' of capitalizing the first word of a sentence.

 

Though I always make a special effort not to capitalise the names of deities, if they do happen to fall at the start of a sentence, capitalisation takes precedence over my personal vendetta. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Vastet

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Vastet wrote:
The more you or others argue it, the more vehemently I'll make sure not to capitalise words that should not exist.

                     

                                  ...knock yourself out gaming god.    ( notice I didn't capitalize "gaming god " ?  Does that bug you ? )

Seriously? LOL

*Shakes head*

Get more prozac.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:KTULA,

Jean Chauvin wrote:

KTULA, but definition, a standard is always objective and anchored down via universals so as to compare and KNOW. If all is relative (including standards), then by definiton, you cannot have a standard if it is relative. This is antithetical to what is a standard.

The law of NON-Contradiction is coined via Roman Catholicism through Aristotle. The correct way to phrase it is the law of contradiction. But since this is an absolute anchored down law, you cannot embrace this. You must be relative, and allow for contradiction.

By definition a standard is an agreed upon unit of measure, or in this case, a principle used for judgement.  I can't think of anything more subjective or relative than a standard.  What you have here is a fallacy of equivocation on the word "standard" Smiling  Perhaps you are an atheists that believes the meter rod to be an universal? Or do you believe my standard of living to be anchored down via universals? See? once you're willing to ignore the intended definition you can come up with all kinds of absurd conclusions.

Law of Contradiction is how I classify information empirically.  I try not to take in anything that apparently contradicts itself, for example the Christian Trinity.  It is the reason I'm an atheist. Smiling

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
We do "belittle"

We do "belittle" christianity. Wahh.

Are we supposed to prop it up and make it seem cool to be a moron? They do a fine enough job of that. Oh look I'm belittling it again.

Condescension and sarcastic patronizing works as well. ^

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello Everybody on the floor and nobody will get hurt,

The Trivium? Very good Come Out With Your Hands Up. Were you at a Classical School?

KTULA, but definition, a standard is always objective and anchored down via universals so as to compare and KNOW. If all is relative (including standards), then by definiton, you cannot have a standard if it is relative. This is antithetical to what is a standard.

The law of NON-Contradiction is coined via Roman Catholicism through Aristotle. The correct way to phrase it is the law of contradiction. But since this is an absolute anchored down law, you cannot embrace this. You must be relative, and allow for contradiction.

John Cage, Jackson Polluck, Duchamp, John Jacques Rousseau. One man, Gauguin, a post Impressionist painted Rousseau's Noble Savage and tried to live it out consistently according to atheism standard. There is no order, no standard, no logic, no normative.

He drew a very famous picture regarding this. He eventually killed himself since he found a disconnect of reality regarding the practice verses the theoretical. Earnest Hemmingway shot himself in the head for similar reasons.

These men were consistent. People on here are simply playing word games. Atheistm, agnostic, weak atheist, lack of, etc.

Those that have not killed themselves with the disconnect of reality via the practical and the theoretical become very evil brutal mean such as Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Obama, etc.

For you to write a book on contradiction, how could this be possible since your writing would always contradict, thus bringing to the reader, well, nothing.

Perhaps that's the point as John Cage has been trying to say.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

For something to be relative it must be relative to something. That which it is relative to is the standard by which it is considered relative. That standard itself could be relative to something else or the thing that is relative to it.  When one says that it is relative one means that that which is considered is dependent upon certain events, cirmcumstances, things or situations being extant, present or available. Without this you have chaos not relativity.   The legitimacy of the art you malign is that a certain extant given  must be assumed for the meaning of the aesthetic. Rejection or the inability to comprehend that presupposition or ground of meaning obviously makes the artwork incomprehensible or meaningless.  The shortcoming is oft on the part of the observer and not the artist. However, an artist can be confused, befuddled or frustrated in his/her attempt to convey what is supposedly captured in the artist's experience or thought (visionary gleam).


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Come on

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Come on guys, using good grammar is a art.

 

 

A lost art, maybe. Spend some time working in a job that requires lots of paperwork without requiring standards in spelling & grammar (ie: everything that isn't media driven) and you quickly find the average joe doesn't have good grammar or spelling and doesn't care. Worse, they look down on people who waste their time quibbling over an apostrophe and ignoring the content of text as if that missing apostrophe somehow discredited the entire text.

I'm with them. Spelling and grammar nazis rarely have something to say that has any meaning to everyone else.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Cpt_pineapple

Vastet wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Come on guys, using good grammar is a art.

 

 

A lost art, maybe. Spend some time working in a job that requires lots of paperwork without requiring standards in spelling & grammar (ie: everything that isn't media driven) and you quickly find the average joe doesn't have good grammar or spelling and doesn't care. Worse, they look down on people who waste their time quibbling over an apostrophe and ignoring the content of text as if that missing apostrophe somehow discredited the entire text. I'm with them. Spelling and grammar nazis rarely have something to say that has any meaning to everyone else.

I'm pragamtic. The only time grammar is needed is when there is a need to clarify something that otherwise can not be understood. Even spelling is terribly secondary in thet wi undrstnd wht iz ben sid regrfless of ie spekllin.   A comma is need only to separate something so someone can understand a separation between something. 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That was awesome. XD

That was awesome. XD

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello KTULA,

By definition, a standard cannot be flux, lest it not be a standard. A standard that is flux is really nothing more then a guy pissing in the wind.

If everything is relative again, that would make the standard flux. And thus the standard itself is also relative, meaning you would have to have an infinite number of standard for each relative position. Since this is impossible, and since you are finite particular, you are forced with no standard but instead your guts.

Hi TG,

Quote:
For something to be relative it must be relatlive to something

This statement MUST also be relative. Thus it can also be relative to nothing. You cannot have a non-relative proposition dicate all relativity, this is contradiction.

In atheism, there can be no standard within the realm of subjectivism. The "standard" becomes YOU which is not a standard all of you are moody little cranks.

And if all is relative, the notino that all is relative is also relative, thus deeming that all is not relative. There are phiosophpical problems with this that end the relativist up on his head begging for mercy.

As a relativist KTULA, I could say that your atheism is relative and thus you may be a Chrisitan and accept Jesus as your savior.

It's ridiculous and self refutes itself before it gets started. There can be zero none no objective immutable standard in relativity.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Since religious belief and

Since religious belief and doctrine is based purely on the internal instincts, intuitions, and experiences of the human mind, ie faith and revelation, rather than external empirically and logically verifiable observation, it can have no standard other than how strongly the person feels about something.

Something that all can perceive and compare against other similar things, or better, measure with an instrument, is necessary to serve as standard. The other attribute required of a standard is that it remain unchanged as long as possible, which of course disqualifies anything based purely on the ideas of man, such as religious doctrine and dogma, which change and split into competing variations continually.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: There

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 There can be zero none no objective immutable standard in relativity.

Is that an absolute? Then relativity would need to have constants for that statement to be correct. Which makes your entire proposition a logical fallacy.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Jean Chauvin

redneF wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 There can be zero none no objective immutable standard in relativity.

Is that an absolute? Then relativity would need to have constants for that statement to be correct. Which makes your entire proposition a logical fallacy.

 

 

To me something can be relative to something else that is relative.   The absurdity of theism in this sense is that god to have an attribute of creator would be dependent and therefore relative to a creation ( So the baha'is for example).  In physics reality depends on everything being relative to everything else. Of course relative and absolute are defined differently by theologies and philosophies. Something relative could be subject to an absolute. Such as if 1+1=2 is absolute all of our oranges are relative to that truth.  But that math could be an abstraction that does not actually transcend but is realtive itself to the whole state of the relative universe.

 

One could argue that if god sees something good for a reason rather than his arbitrary will (whim) then god is relative to reason. ( The Divine Command Theory). But if the good of god is a whim then god is not really god. His act is not even really good it is accidental and deemed good by the relative state of the recipients impression.  If god on the other hand has no reason for his will then his will is not subject or relative to reason and is arbitrary and not really an act of will. It is simply a random act. But if his will is subject to reason and then judgement them these  properties are limiters to god and he is relative to standards apart from himself.  If these reasons or will on the other hand or situational ( derive from god's reaction or action to creation) then they again or relative to creation and the situation. TO say god experiences our world is to make him relative to our world in that his perception is dependent on what occurs in the world and our "freewill" acts.  The only workable concept of an absolute god that I know of is Aristotle's which is only self aware and has no experience of the imperfect things that orbit around him attempting to obtain perfection. So even if there were a god everything would be relative or it would have no contact or awareness of our universe.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:That was

Vastet wrote:
That was awesome. XD
THANX

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:redneF

TGBaker wrote:

redneF wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 There can be zero none no objective immutable standard in relativity.

Is that an absolute? Then relativity would need to have constants for that statement to be correct. Which makes your entire proposition a logical fallacy.

 

 

To me something can be relative to something else that is relative.    

Of course.

Which is what allows us to make 100% reliable predictions about certain outcomes.

For example, we can model certain outcomes with 100% certainty, without even factoring gravity into the equation, since it is such a weak force.

Astrologers will babble about the gravity from the aligment of the planets during your birth, when the gravity of the hospital, and the doctors in the room at the time of your birth had more gravitational effect on you than the far away planets.

Navel gazers are out to fricken' lunch on their 'thinkin' 'bout thinkin'

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The problem is religion

The problem is religion poisons everything including the English language. We should talk about the 'Christian', 'Jewish' or 'Islamic' religions the same as any extinct religion since to us it is equally invalid.

The language is set up to presume the existence of the Christian god(God).

As a compromise I propose this:

'practioners of the Christian religion' rather than 'Christian'.

'The sacred texts of the Christian religion' rather than 'the Bible'

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:The problem is

EXC wrote:

The problem is religion poisons everything including the English language. We should talk about the 'Christian', 'Jewish' or 'Islamic' religions the same as any extinct religion since to us it is equally invalid.

The language is set up to presume the existence of the Christian god(God).

As a compromise I propose this:

'practioners of the Christian religion' rather than 'Christian'.

'The sacred texts of the Christian religion' rather than 'the Bible'

I use the term christianities since there are so many varieties some mutually exclusive.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Alaskan Atheist
Alaskan Atheist's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2011-05-11
User is offlineOffline
I suppose the OP is talking

I suppose the OP is talking about me. I apologize if that irks you. I can't help it. It's like a God-given skill of mine...

"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to known." - Carl Sagan

"Atheism is a non-prophet organization." – George Carlin

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." – Richard Dawkins


Fonzie
TheistardTroll
Fonzie's picture
Posts: 825
Joined: 2008-08-31
User is offlineOffline
THERE'S MORE THERE THAN THESE

Anonymous wrote:

I find one habit of many atheist posters on this and other fora to be annoying, mostly because I am an editor, and therefore a stickler for grammar by vocation. I recently read on these boards an essay (I presume by a high-school student) for school on why that person would not be a Christian. Fine as far as that goes, and perhaps a bit cheeky, as that would likely ruffle the feathers of some teachers in this nation.

However, the essay does show up the tendency of some atheists to "belittle by proxy" religious views, especially Christian ones.

Take that word "Christian." I don't know how many times I have seen it written as "christian."

Similarly, "the bible" is ofttimes lower-cased.

In English Grammar, titles of religious sects or books are capitalized. Always. I presume that some atheists lower-case The Bible as a visual display of their disdain for that book, from a belief it is myth, fiction, &c. But the same folk would not presume to rewrite the rules of grammar for other books they consider to be fictional, such as Airport, or The Hobbit.

I have even run into this tendency in my job, where I then have to politely point out to the author "The Bible" is the title of a book. Regardless of whether one believes what is in it, it is still the title of a book.

And yet many of the same atheists will hold forth on how uninformed a particular Christian apologist is by pointing out flaws in spelling or grammar.

What setting The Bible's title in lower-case does show is a lack of understanding, or disdain, of the rules of English grammar. It has nothing to do with religion. Lower-casing the title actually takes away from whatever salient point the atheist is trying to make. Consider: if the atheist cannot be bothered with even getting grammar and spelling right (such as xtian), what else in the post could they not be bothered with? Accuracy? Science? History?

While it might make one "feel good" inside, scoring some imaginary point system by lower-casing Christian titles or misspelling the name of the religion or sects, it also shows how petty the atheist poster really is.

Now back to the flame wars,

James.

 

 

Anonymouse,

Don't forget using "their" for "they're" and "there".  That's disrespect for the English teacher.

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Well

Anonymous wrote:


While it might make one "feel good" inside, scoring some imaginary point system by lower-casing Christian titles or misspelling the name of the religion or sects, it also shows how petty the atheist poster really is.

 

We certainly weren't petty enough to care about deliberate or accidental perversions of grammar and no one chose to pay out on a person (James) who believed in some obscure wiccan cult figures on the basis of no proof whatever. Makes me wonder what really lay behind this guy's attitude.

Maybe theists feel a spiritual connection to each other even if the particular cults are at variance. Consider the muslims only think christians are second class citizens while atheists are to be slain on the spot. Maybe our ragging on the spiritual was too much?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Gee

Fonzie wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I find one habit of many atheist posters on this and other fora to be annoying, mostly because I am an editor, and therefore a stickler for grammar by vocation. I recently read on these boards an essay (I presume by a high-school student) for school on why that person would not be a Christian. Fine as far as that goes, and perhaps a bit cheeky, as that would likely ruffle the feathers of some teachers in this nation.

However, the essay does show up the tendency of some atheists to "belittle by proxy" religious views, especially Christian ones.

Take that word "Christian." I don't know how many times I have seen it written as "christian."

Similarly, "the bible" is ofttimes lower-cased.

In English Grammar, titles of religious sects or books are capitalized. Always. I presume that some atheists lower-case The Bible as a visual display of their disdain for that book, from a belief it is myth, fiction, &c. But the same folk would not presume to rewrite the rules of grammar for other books they consider to be fictional, such as Airport, or The Hobbit.

I have even run into this tendency in my job, where I then have to politely point out to the author "The Bible" is the title of a book. Regardless of whether one believes what is in it, it is still the title of a book.

And yet many of the same atheists will hold forth on how uninformed a particular Christian apologist is by pointing out flaws in spelling or grammar.

What setting The Bible's title in lower-case does show is a lack of understanding, or disdain, of the rules of English grammar. It has nothing to do with religion. Lower-casing the title actually takes away from whatever salient point the atheist is trying to make. Consider: if the atheist cannot be bothered with even getting grammar and spelling right (such as xtian), what else in the post could they not be bothered with? Accuracy? Science? History?

While it might make one "feel good" inside, scoring some imaginary point system by lower-casing Christian titles or misspelling the name of the religion or sects, it also shows how petty the atheist poster really is.

Now back to the flame wars,

James.

 

 

Anonymouse,

Don't forget using "their" for "they're" and "there".  That's disrespect for the English teacher.

 

 

 

Nice to see you getting out of the house...

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Did I see the Fonz post

Did I see the Fonz post somewhere other than that repeating deja vu oh no here we go again trainwreck of a thread?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


luca
atheist
Posts: 399
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Not that apparently anyone cares but

I like to be grammatically and ortographically correct. This is a simple fact of adhering to reality. It's useful in a big number of ways, and also it's simply right.
An example would be when you search something: how many times happened that you didn't find what you searched because of an error? Well maybe not so often but we have also the ability to overcome the error by searching something else. But to not have the error in first place would help.
Using the words to craft the phrases and say exactly what you mean is an art. Respect.