93 replies to this topic

[Aeg'air]

"Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities. More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist. The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist."

There ya go, smarty-pants. Now, please be so kind to demonstrate for Carl anywhere in the definition where it has to do with a disbelief in anything supernatural other than a god, as he was wont to claim.

What? Elaborate please. I never made the claim that Atheism was the rejection of supernatural. Why do I have to back that up? I made the claim that Atheism was the lack of belief of Deity. Which is exactly what you've just said.

There are these things called (in)definite articles. They're wondering why they've been laid off.

No idea what you mean here.

They have friends called capitalization rules. They're wondering why they're getting overtime.

Respect. Deity and God deserve capitalisation just like towns, villages, countries.

Also, you're missing the entire joke in that it wouldn't be believing in a higher power, which would make it just like atheists.

Unfunny joke is unfunny. It's generally how misinformation gets spread. And since when does a higher power have to be a God? How the hell do the Greek God's fit in under that definition?

[Lyre Harper]

What? Elaborate please. I never made the claim that Atheism was the rejection of supernatural. Why do I have to back that up? I made the claim that Atheism was the lack of belief of Deity. Which is exactly what you've just said.

You weren't supposed to defend yourself, you were supposed to explain it to Carl.

[MrKrov]

What? Elaborate please. I never made the claim that Atheism was the rejection of supernatural. Why do I have to back that up? I made the claim that Atheism was the lack of belief of Deity. Which is exactly what you've just said.

You weren't supposed to defend yourself, you were supposed to explain it to Carl.

Thank you, Lyre Harper.

No idea what you mean here.

These things called (in)definite articles serve a nifty little grammatical function of indicating deixis. They are commonly used with count nouns. "Deity" happens to be such a noun. Use them.

Respect. Deity and God deserve capitalisation just like towns, villages, countries.

Only when acting as a proper noun, which "Deity" is not. "A God" is not a proper noun phrase. C'mon people, these are not hard conventions to follow.

Unfunny joke is unfunny. It's generally how misinformation gets spread. And since when does a higher power have to be a God? How the hell do the Greek God's fit in under that definition?

It's ok; it was to be expected a few wouldn't get it. The whole point is that God can't/doesn't believe in any higher power; DarkMatter2525's poking fun at God being routinely described by theists as the exception to causality. The whole "I don't believe I was made by a god" thing. That is the point of calling God an atheist.
What about the Greek gods? Pretty sure all but two of them had parents they knew about.

[Aeg'air]

Thank you, Lyre Harper.

But there isn't really anything for me to explain that hasn't already been said.

These things called (in)definite articles serve a nifty little grammatical function of indicating deixis. They are commonly used with count nouns. "Deity" happens to be such a noun. Use them.

If you say so.

Only when acting as a proper noun, which "Deity" is not. "A God" is not a proper noun phrase. C'mon people, these are not hard conventions to follow.

Since when?

It's ok; it was to be expected a few wouldn't get it. The whole point is that God can't/doesn't believe in any higher power; DarkMatter2525's poking fun at God being routinely described by theists as the exception to causality. The whole "I don't believe I was made by a god" thing. That is the point of calling God an atheist.
What about the Greek gods? Pretty sure all but two of them had parents they knew about.

I got it, it just isn't funny or in fact accurate.

[Lyre Harper]

Thank you, Lyre Harper.

Lyre is fine.

[Pippi]

An agnostic insomniac dyslexic stays up at night, wondering if there is a Dog.

[Lyre Harper]

An agnostic insomniac dyslexic stays up at night, wondering if there is a Dog.

I shall have to remember that...

[MrKrov]

But there isn't really anything for me to explain that hasn't already been said.

Which makes me question why you felt compelled to take my posts to Carl and think they were for you. WTF?

If you say so.

I'm not the only one who says randomly leaving out articles isn't quite so grammatical.

Since when?

Pretty much anything written in the last couple centuries. Try to keep up, dearie.
"A" implies indefiniteness. How often do you prefix "a " in front of random, proper nouns, a Aeg'air?

I got it, it just isn't funny or in fact accurate.

You keep saying that. However, we all know jokes that have to be explained to you lose some major funnyness.
As an aside, repeating it doesn't make it any more true.

Hm, I noticed I didn't leave anything tangent to the actual comic. Do you plan on fixing those shadows, Dan?

[Aeg'air]

Which makes me question why you felt compelled to take my posts to Carl and think they were for you. WTF?

You addressed me!

I'm not the only one who says randomly leaving out articles isn't quite so grammatical.

Once again fair enough.

Pretty much anything written in the last couple centuries. Try to keep up, dearie.
"A" implies indefiniteness. How often do you prefix "a " in front of random, proper nouns, a Aeg'air?

Pretty often actually.

You keep saying that. However, we all know jokes that have to be explained to you lose some major funnyness.
As an aside, repeating it doesn't make it any more true.

Faulty premise. You're assuming I didn't get it.

[TobyC]

An agnostic insomniac dyslexic stays up at night, wondering if there is a Dog.

LOL. I believe that joke was how I first learned what an agnostic was.

[MrKrov]

You addressed me!

I quoted Carl! Then you addressed me!

Pretty often actually.

You're doing it wrong then, a Aeg'air.

Faulty premise. You're assuming I didn't get it.

I find it tenable since you find it unfunny and attempting to poke holes in the logic.

[Aeg'air]

I quoted Carl! Then you addressed me!

EDIT: Bull. Look back. You quoted me.

You're doing it wrong then, a Aeg'air.

There's a Aeg'air, there's a Lyre, there's a handful of Aeg'airs etc. How hard is it for you to understand that using a capital letter as a sign of respect?

I find it tenable since you find it unfunny and attempting to poke holes in the logic.

I find it unfunny because it is flawed. And there isn't any logic really in there apart from the syntax of it. The reasoning itself can make sense, but only on a level which is separate to mine.

[Lyre Harper]

There's a Aeg'air, there's a Lyre, there's a handful of Aeg'airs etc. How hard is it for you to understand that using a capital letter as a sign of respect?

Actually you've both got it wrong.

It should be AN Aeg'air.

Since there's vowels an' all.

[MrKrov]

[quote name='Aeg'air' date='20 February 2010 - 09:25 AM' timestamp='1266675930' post='320868']
EDIT: Bull. Look back. You quoted me.[/quote]
[quote name='MrKrov' date='17 February 2010 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1266440676' post='320213']
[quote name='Carl' date='15 February 2010 - 10:08 AM' timestamp='1266246484' post='319692']
"Atheism" means something, specifically a belief that there is no need for anything supernatural to explain the universe and its phenomena.[/quote]

[quote name='Carl' date='16 February 2010 - 11:48 PM' timestamp='1266382127' post='320072']
But the etymology is not relevant. It's as if you backed up your position with 'The capital of Nova Scotia is Halifax.' [/quote]

It is if it demonstrates how it's still used.

[quote name='Carl' date='16 February 2010 - 11:48 PM' timestamp='1266382127' post='320072']
From Wikipedia: "Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities. More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist." You're in love with the narrower definition, but that isn't the only one.[/quote]

What part of the wiki definition covers the "not believing in anything supernatural" instead of simply "not believing in gods"???
[/quote]

Yeah, I can totally see how Carl and Aeg'air are so easily confused. Just look at those similarities! They both have an "a" and "r" in their names!

[quote name='Aeg'air' date='18 February 2010 - 10:43 AM' timestamp='1266507810' post='320349']
[quote name='warrl' date='16 February 2010 - 08:20 PM' timestamp='1266369622' post='320040']
I'm with Aeg'air on this. In the absence of evidence about the existence of some sort of deity, the rational position is the apathetic agnostic.

Or the ignostic - who responds to the underlying question with "Define God. If you can't do that, the very question is pointless."
[/quote]

*Wobbles his hand* Not entirely sure but I think I agree here. Wouldn't the Ignostic be also classed as agnostic atheist as well... Well.. Depending on the definition you use... which kinda brings me to the rest of this post.

[quote name='MrKrov' date='17 February 2010 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1266440676' post='320213']
It is if it demonstrates how it's still used. [/quote]
Indeed?

[quote name='MrKrov' date='17 February 2010 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1266440676' post='320213']
What part of the wiki definition covers the "not believing in anything supernatural" instead of simply "not believing in gods"???[/quote]
And note the wiki definition says "At the narrowest" meaning there is a much wider definition than the one they gave.

Only if you personify this God to be human. Which many would say is over personifying Deity. Well... depends on who you speak to... Either way, if a God was aware of itself why wouldn't it believe in itself?
[/quote]

I wish people weren't so damn lazy they can't go back a page to see who addressed who first. They might look less like jackasses that way.

[quote name='Aeg'air' date='20 February 2010 - 09:25 AM' timestamp='1266675930' post='320868']
There's a Aeg'air, there's a Lyre, there's a handful of Aeg'airs etc. How hard is it for you to understand that using a capital letter as a sign of respect?[/quote]
Since you need a chart on capitalization rules:
a god = vague, common noun
gods = vague, common noun
the god = vague, common noun
the gods = vague, common noun
God = not vague, proper noun
You only capitalize the last one because the others aren't acting as names. Why is it only a handful of people on the internet who seem to not be able to grasp this? I mean, seriously, it's almost like we're supposed to ignore the last few hundred years of capitalization rules and it's become ok to capitalize random nouns like Truth and Pie.

[quote name='Aeg'air' date='20 February 2010 - 09:25 AM' timestamp='1266675930' post='320868']
I find it unfunny because it is flawed. And there isn't any logic really in there apart from the syntax of it. The reasoning itself can make sense, but only on a level which is separate to mine.[/quote]
I just posted why the joke makes sense. It's like that episode of SouthPark with Kanye West and the fishsticks joke.

[quote name='Lyre Harper' date='20 February 2010 - 10:12 AM' timestamp='1266678744' post='320877']
Actually you've both got it wrong.It should be AN Aeg'air. Since there's vowels an' all.
[/quote]
Ho ho.

[Lyre Harper]

Ho ho.

I'm gonna go with sincerity there, and laugh right along with you.

[Aeg'air]

I wish people weren't so damn lazy they can't go back a page to see who addressed who first. They might look less like jackasses that way.

Here is where I'm referring to. It is only here where I am addressing only you. Beforehand I only addressed you twice, on checking we agreed. Is it truly so hard for you to understand that if you hadn't addressed me in that post, or only addressed me where I'd addressed you, that at most you would only have but duh, duh?

Since you need a chart on capitalization rules:
a god = vague, common noun
gods = vague, common noun
the god = vague, common noun
the gods = vague, common noun
God = not vague, proper noun
You only capitalize the last one because the others aren't acting as names. Why is it only a handful of people on the internet who seem to not be able to grasp this? I mean, seriously, it's almost like we're supposed to ignore the last few hundred years of capitalization rules and it's become ok to capitalize random nouns like Truth and Pie.

God isn't a name at all, it's a title. And can you actually back up that I shouldn't capitalise God?

I just posted why the joke makes sense. It's like that episode of SouthPark with Kanye West and the fishsticks joke.

When not why. There is a difference.

[MrKrov]

Here is where I'm referring to. It is only here where I am addressing only you. Beforehand I only addressed you twice, on checking we agreed. Is it truly so hard for you to understand that if you hadn't addressed me in that post, or only addressed me where I'd addressed you, that at most you would only have but duh, duh?

Failsauce. You addressed me first. Not letting you get away with dumb posts doesn't change that. Accept the überpwnage.

God isn't a name at all, it's a title. And can you actually back up that I shouldn't capitalise God?

Dammit, are you too lazy to pay attention to the rules in use for HUNDREDS OF YEARS? Pick up a damn book, be it a geology book explaining what people used to believe in that caused landformations, a history book explaining the beliefs of a certain group, or even a simple literature book.
The only people who do it differently are a few aspies on the internet in the last few years; these so happen to also be the people who usually capitalize random nouns like "the Truth".

God is only capitalized when it acts as the name of one particular religious entity. "A god" /= "God". Different. Are you too dumb to grasp the concept of (in)definite articles? Huh? They are a part of grammar! They actually mean something!

"Yo, President, I got something for you."
"If you want to be a president, you generally need to get elected".
Holy crap! Nouns that act as both common nouns and as names! And they take different capitization rules!

When not why. There is a difference.

And this is downright nonsensical. Yo, a Aeg'air, I'm really happy for you, I'ma let you finish, but you were in one of the best time-wasting arguments of all time! One of the best time-wasting arguments of all time!

[Aeg'air]

Failsauce. You addressed me first. Not letting you get away with dumb posts doesn't change that. Accept the überpwnage.

And notice how I address you, I address you to be sure I had it right, as a sideline query. You were addressing when you started on this tangent.


Not to mention you haven't shown it to be dumb yet at all. Grammatical flaws maybe, but dumb no.

Dammit, are you too lazy to pay attention to the rules in use for HUNDREDS OF YEARS? Pick up a damn book, be it a geology book explaining what people used to believe in that caused landformations, a history book explaining the beliefs of a certain group, or even a simple literature book.
The only people who do it differently are a few aspies on the internet in the last few years; these so happen to also be the people who usually capitalize random nouns like "the Truth".

God is only capitalized when it acts as the name of one particular religious entity. "A god" /= "God". Different. Are you too dumb to grasp the concept of (in)definite articles? Huh? They are a part of grammar! They actually mean something!

"Yo, President, I got something for you."
"If you want to be a president, you generally need to get elected".
Holy crap! Nouns that act as both common nouns and as names! And they take different capitization rules!

Do you not understand the Burden of Proof? Do you not understand me simply asking you to just find a [goshdarn]ed source? I am pretty certain you are indeed correct, but pretty certain is not the same as certain.

And this is downright nonsensical. Yo, a Aeg'air, I'm really happy for you, I'ma let you finish, but you were in one of the best time-wasting arguments of all time! One of the best time-wasting arguments of all time!

Bull. A joke using wording which may have different definitions may indeed only make sense when said definition is used. When a different definition is used then the joke may indeed fail.


EDIT: And I am now in love with the censor.

[David]

You don't get any proof until you prove you're alive; zombies don't deserve proof.

You shouldn't have to prove your alive because it's obvious, and thus we shouldn't have to prove that proper nouns get capital letters as it's an accepted law of English. You are the one arguing against the norm, so it's up to you to provide proof.

It took 5 seconds to find http://en.wikipedia....#Capitalization, maybe if instead of arguing pedantries you had a quick look you would have gotten your answer quicker and without looking like an idiot.

[Aeg'air]

You don't get any proof until you prove you're alive; zombies don't deserve proof.

Why? I never claimed to be alive.

You shouldn't have to prove your alive because it's obvious, and thus we shouldn't have to prove that proper nouns get capital letters as it's an accepted law of English. You are the one arguing against the norm, so it's up to you to provide proof.

I never made the charge, so the Burden wasn't on me.

It took 5 seconds to find http://en.wikipedia....#Capitalization, maybe if instead of arguing pedantries you had a quick look you would have gotten your answer quicker and without looking like an idiot.

Once again, the charge wasn't on me.