Just Joined

[Jeep]

Hello All,

I'm a 43 year old male that joined here in order to try to help promote the lack of a need for faith.
I was born and raised in what is almost dead center of what is known as the bible belt in east central Mississippi.
I have a degree in electrical engineering and I currently own/operate a Harley-Davidson aftermarket repair and customizing shop.

My dad wasn't religious that I know of, as he never spoke on the subject, but his mother was. I went to church with her until I was about 11 or 12.
My mother was raised as a baptist and her side of the family was very religious although I got the impression that she leaned toward being religious only in order to not make waves among her parents and 8 syblings.

For a great deal of my life I never mentioned that I'm an atheist as I felt like I would immediately be looked down upon. For several years now, that has changed, as I have read the bible in depth as well as Darwin's "Origin of Species", Dawkins' "God Delusion", Hitchens' "God is not Great", and Stephen Hawking's "A brief History of Time" and Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell".

Exactly one of those books made no sense at all to me. Guess which one.

[catalyst]

Actually Jeep it is not ALWAYS capitalised and there is one instant where it isn't, as in english(all lower case).:The spin given to a propelled ball by striking it on one side or releasing it with a sharp twist.

As with just about everything, there is always an exception to the rule.

Grammar notes:

• British usage capitalise, Americanism; capitalize
• instant - didn't you mean instance?
• english - good example!

Logician Notes:

• always an exception to the rule - Is there an exception to the rule of always being an exception?

* - Instant/instance. Yes. My faux pas. *Note to self. Don't drink Verdehlo when debating.

* - Capitalised - I was being cheeky. I see you are Canadian and was of the impression that like other Commonwealth "children", the British usage remained standard.

* - always an exception to the rule. - I did state firstly "as with just about everything". The only thing I can see as an exception to the exception is Mathematic solution, if of course you go by the logic of( positive) 1+(positive)1 always equalling (positive) 2. (when dealing with whole numbers).

However to take it further as to exception, rules are merely human constructs for applying principles and values anyway. Principles seldom have exceptions, but rules do. Rules do at times when, based upon unanticipated circumstances, they need to be refined in order to faithfully apply said principle. For instance, a rule that says you must not drive on the left hand side of the road might be altered by road cave-in on that side assuming great caution is used when veering to the left, or when roadworks are in progress, or when the rule of a specific country is to drive on the left rather than the right, again though an exception to THAT rule, is equal in opposition as well.

Apologies to Jeep. My intent was not to derail the thread. As stated before, Welcome to Debating Christianity.

[McCulloch]

I see you are Canadian and was of the impression that like other Commonwealth "children", the British usage remained standard.

Spelling in Canada is always a bit of a challenge. We retain certain vestiges of British usage, since we are of the Commonwealth. Yet, we cannot resist the the cultural influence of our neighbo[strike]u[/strike]r, our largest trading partner, with whom we share the world's longest shared border. More than 75% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the 3,145 miles long US border.

[Jeep]

Actually Jeep it is not ALWAYS capitalised and there is one instant where it isn't, as in english(all lower case).:The spin given to a propelled ball by striking it on one side or releasing it with a sharp twist.

As with just about everything, there is always an exception to the rule.

Grammar notes:

• British usage capitalise, Americanism; capitalize
• instant - didn't you mean instance?
• english - good example!

Logician Notes:

• always an exception to the rule - Is there an exception to the rule of always being an exception?

I see that I'll enjoy myself here.

The exception on the term english used as an applied spin is an excellent example and I'm ashamed that I didn't consider it as I am an avid player of pocket billiards.

As an American, I capitaliZe. I never knew the british used capitaliSe.

[Fallibleone]

'Capitalise', 'memorise', 'proselytise', 'authorise' (as in the giving of official permission and nothing to do with being the author of something), 'organise' ...and 'alphabetize' is a made-up word. Mehehe.

Oh. And I see that 'obliged' becomes 'obligated' over the pond. At first I thought this was just a mistake like 'irregardless' (mehehehehehehehehehe), but apparently not.

[McCulloch]

All words are made-up words. Just some are more recent than others.
I found alphabetize in Random House Unabridged Dictionary, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University and Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996.

Irregardless, is listed as Nonstandard .

[row][b]Usage Note[/b]: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

[Fallibleone]

All words are made-up words. Just some are more recent than others.
I found alphabetize in Random House Unabridged Dictionary, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University and Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996.

Irregardless, is listed as Nonstandard .

[row][b]Usage Note[/b]: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

'Alphabetize' is not a word in common English (the country) usage. Nor is 'irregardless'. I was attempting a light hearted comment on the many differences between British and North American word usage. Differences which do not seem to explain your common mistaken uses of 'whose' and 'who's', by the way, since we are coming over all proper.

Woot! I've been wanting to get that out for ages!

[McCulloch]

'alphabetize' is a made-up word.

All words are made-up words. Just some are more recent than others.

'Alphabetize' is not a word in common English (the country) usage.

Alphabetize is not yet a word in common usage in British English. It is becoming more common in American English. I don't know about Global English. I'll bet you can find it in the venerated OED.

Differences which do not seem to explain your common mistaken uses of 'whose' and 'who's', by the way, since we are coming over all proper.

Did I make that mistake? I must be slipping!

Woot! I've been wanting to get that out for ages!

I'm glad you feel better.

[Fallibleone]

'alphabetize' is a made-up word.

All words are made-up words. Just some are more recent than others.

'Alphabetize' is not a word in common English (the country) usage.

Alphabetize is not yet a word in common usage in British English. It is becoming more common in American English. I don't know about Global English. I'll bet you can find it in the venerated OED.

I've no doubt it will eventually make its way over here, as have other words. In some sense it already has, since I am aware of it. My only comment is that it is not in common usage over here and sounds quite odd to people. I tried to have a joke and apparently failed miserably.

Differences which do not seem to explain your common mistaken uses of 'whose' and 'who's', by the way, since we are coming over all proper.

Did I make that mistake? I must be slipping!

On more than one occasion. Easy mistake to make.

Woot! I've been wanting to get that out for ages!

I'm glad you feel better.[/quote]

I do, I do.

[McCulloch]

Differences which do not seem to explain your common mistaken uses of 'whose' and 'who's', by the way, since we are coming over all proper.

Did I make that mistake? I must be slipping!

On more than one occasion. Easy mistake to make.

Here, achilles12604 Who's side is God on? makes that mistake.

And here, C-Nub OLD ROCK makes it.

Secondly, I trust physicistS, geologistS, biologistS, not 'a physicist' or 'a biologist'. A person, with some letters after their name, is highly fallible and subject to rhetoric and should be taken as an individual witness who's statements have to be verified. ...
If you think that you can't trust anything anyone with letters after their name says, that you have to verify it all for yourself, that's fine. That's going to include Newton and Einstein on gravity, Curie on Radiation, Oppenheimer on fission, and literally thousands of others who's names have since been forgotten and who's work shapes our world to this day. Good luck with that.

And here, QED Greetings and Hello!! makes the error.

Christianity always strikes me as being something of a condiment for those who's taste of the world seems a little too bland, but then everyone to their own taste.

And here, Andymc7 Calvinism Vs Arminianism uses who's where who've is indicated.

Why would God be patient with people who's already been saved?

And here, Joer FEMALE PRIESTS & PRIEST MARRIAGE falls into the trap.

I think a better metaphor would be a like a sales or marketing rep in that company who's mission is getting the knowledge of and faith in God out to as many people as possible.

And finally,

I may not be the most intelligent person, but I know that many very intellegent people, theists and non-theists, who hold to the theory of evolution. Simply calling it rediculous and lunacy does not further the debate in any productive way and shows your obvious contempt for the many genuine scholars who's research supports this scientific idea.

It must have been a bad day, two spelling errors and that grammar mistake.
However, I cannot verify that I have made the mistake on more than one occasion. Please validate your claim.

[Fallibleone]

Gawd. Well, since I was not even aware of the existence of this site way back in 2005 and yet I recall you having made the mistake, either I remember incorrectly (which I personally think is unlikely since you are known to me in part for your corrections of other people's grammatical errors and a mistake by you would stick in my mind), or you have made the mistake on more than one occasion.

I may not be the most intelligent person, but I know that many very intellegent people, theists and non-theists, who hold to the theory of evolution. Simply calling it rediculous and lunacy does not further the debate in any productive way and shows your obvious contempt for the many genuine scholars who's research supports this scientific idea.

It must have been a bad day, two spelling errors and that grammar mistake.

Two spelling errors and two grammar mistakes.


Apologies, Jeep, for what has become of your introductory thread.