Teaching the English about how to use *our* language...
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Let me know when you all do very basic things that we
initated and largely perfected over 300 years ago like
all speaking the same language...

Ahem. You seem to be forgetting the 35 million Hispanics
who have a command of English even worse than you
"English speaking" Americans.

The Hispanics I know seem to have an excellent command of American English.
The Hispanics in the US seem to be acclimating very rapidly.

Teaching the English about how to use *our* language...
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:12:10 +0000, David Kennedy
wrote:

Surely this has to be a wind up. Even an American
/can't/ possibly be as dull as Arny is pretending to
be. Even G.W. wasn't that stupid.
What Arny (maybe) doesn't realise is the damage he does
to our perception of (a) Americans and (b) christians.

I am sure there is no one here naive enough to confuse
Arny's version of Christianity with the real thing.

Regrettably, Iain seems to have as much personal experience with
Christianity as he has with audio technology.

IME most agnostics and atheists reject Christianity based on ignorance
and/or anxiety. Invariably they start talking about Christianity, and one
has to marvel at how supposedly intelligent people could get so many things
so wrong and prove it so rapdily. It is almost enough to make one believe in
a real personal Satan, the deceiver! ;-)

Philips TDA1541A S1 DAC
 

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message


Like it or not, many Americanisms (and even Australianisms) will be
incorportated into English.

It seems to take an Aussie or a Brit to not realize that current
American English is 90% of the effective current definition of the
language.

We'd be in trouble if the (asian) Indians would get together and
actually use English all the time. ;-)

You may perhaps be out of date on that, although I'm not sure it means
'trouble' given how many words from the area we have already taken into
English.

I would not be surprised to find that the number of 'English speakers' in
India already exceeds the number in the USA. I also wonder if this is
already so with China. Whereas IIUC Spanish is the growing language in the
USA.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Teaching the English about how to use *our* language...
 

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:


IME most agnostics and atheists reject Christianity based on ignorance
and/or anxiety.

Afraid my own experience hasn't enabled me to individually assess "most" of
the agnostics and atheists. My own experience is that agnosticism is a
rational response to the combination of lack of testable evidence, lack of
any need for such a belief, and the clear ways in which the various
religious creeds and views say differing and contradictory things on the
same sort of asserion of 'faith' taking primacy over assessable evidence.

FWIW one of my best friends when I was young used to preachin the
United Reform Church and went to study theology IIRC at a Methodist
college. We often used to discuss such matters, but neither of us ever
caused the other to change their basic views. Most of the other people
I have knowd I have no idea if they were Christians or angnostics, or
even believed in fairies at the bottom of the garden. Such things rarely
rated even being considered as worth discussion.


Invariably they start talking about Christianity, and one has to marvel
at how supposedly intelligent people could get so many things so wrong
and prove it so rapdily. It is almost enough to make one believe in a
real personal Satan, the deceiver! ;-)

Hard to discuss this since my impression is that 'Christians' actually
beleive all kinds of things, often disagreeing in the process. e.g. Some
believe in 'creationism' and insist this must be true from 'The Bible'
whereas others understand 'The Bible' in quite different ways. Some need
Popes and Bishops, others do without.

So whereas your view of agnostics and athesists that they 'invarably' are
as you claim. My experience of people in general is far more varied. Maybe
the situation in the USA is rather more polarised than in other places.

However,get back to me when all the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians,
Hundus, etc, etc, all agree on the matter. Then we could perhaps that idea
of 'theism' more seriously. At present it is odd how many different 'One
Gods' there seem to be *if* you accept what the various beleivers say. :-)

BTW why doesn't this now have 'TOT' in the title? Or is someone going to
draw a parallel with Valves or fancy mains cables as a topic for people
to focus their beliefs... 8-]

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Teaching the English about how to use *our* language...
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article
, Arny
Krueger
wrote:


IME most agnostics and atheists reject Christianity
based on ignorance and/or anxiety.

Afraid my own experience hasn't enabled me to
individually assess "most" of the agnostics and atheists.
My own experience is that agnosticism is a rational
response to the combination of lack of testable evidence,
lack of any need for such a belief, and the clear ways in
which the various religious creeds and views say
differing and contradictory things on the same sort of
asserion of 'faith' taking primacy over assessable
evidence.

I'm afraid that I know enough about how people accept all sorts of things
such as political issues and theories to know that evidence,
lack of any need for such a belief, and the clear ways in which the various
authorities and views say differing and contradictory things is much of a
stopper.

FWIW one of my best friends when I was young used to
preachin the nited Reform Church and went to study theology IIRC at a
Methodist college. We often used to discuss such matters,
but neither of us ever caused the other to change their
basic views.

How many atheists and agnostics do you think that I have similar
relationships with? Answer: many.

Most of the other people I have knowdI have no idea if they were
Christians or
angnostics, or even believed in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Likewise.

Such things rarely rated even being considered as worth
discussion.

And...?

Invariably they start talking about Christianity, and
one has to marvel at how supposedly intelligent people
could get so many things so wrong and prove it so
rapdily. It is almost enough to make one believe in a
real personal Satan, the deceiver! ;-)

Hard to discuss this since my impression is that
'Christians' actually beleive all kinds of things, often
disagreeing in the process. e.g. Some believe in
'creationism' and insist this must be true from 'The
Bible' whereas others understand 'The Bible' in quite
different ways. Some need Popes and Bishops, others do
without.

And this is different from how many other areas where you have tightly-held
beliefs?

So whereas your view of agnostics and athesists that they
'invarably' are as you claim.

The point is that there are very few people who have a coherent, relvant set
of disbeliefs.

However,get back to me when all the Christians, Jews,
Muslims, Zoroastrians, Hundus, etc, etc, all agree on the
matter.

Get back to me when all atheists and agnostics agree among themselves. IOW,
the above is a ludicrous statement.

Then we could perhaps that idea of 'theism' more
seriously. At present it is odd how many different 'One
Gods' there seem to be *if* you accept what the various
beleivers say. :-)

I respect informed disbelief, and I do occasionally find it. However, many
are about as lucid and clear as say, Phildo from AAPLS or Middius at RAO.

Philips TDA1541A S1 DAC
 

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:03:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message


Like it or not, many Americanisms
(and even Australianisms) will be incorportated into
English.

It seems to take an Aussie or a Brit to not realize that current American
English is 90% of the effective current definition of the language.

We'd be in trouble if the (asian) Indians would get together and actually
use English all the time. ;-)


Can you please explain your use of the word "would"? It makes no sense
here. You follow the word "if" with a statement, not a further
conditional clause. In other words "We'd be in trouble if the (asian)
Indians got together and actually used English all the time."

You can at least match your tenses and moods, even if the rest escapes
you.

d

Teaching the English about how to use *our* language...
 

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article , Arny
Krueger wrote:


IME most agnostics and atheists reject Christianity based on
ignorance and/or anxiety.

Afraid my own experience hasn't enabled me to individually assess
"most" of the agnostics and atheists. My own experience is that
agnosticism is a rational response to the combination of lack of
testable evidence, lack of any need for such a belief, and the clear
ways in which the various religious creeds and views say differing and
contradictory things on the same sort of asserion of 'faith' taking
primacy over assessable evidence.

I'm afraid that I know enough about how people accept all sorts of
things such as political issues and theories to know that evidence,
lack of any need for such a belief, and the clear ways in which the
various authorities and views say differing and contradictory things
is much of a stopper.

I agree. Millions of people clear do profess to belive all kinds of things
regardless of the lack of evidence, etc.


Invariably they start talking about Christianity, and one has to
marvel at how supposedly intelligent people could get so many things
so wrong and prove it so rapdily. It is almost enough to make one
believe in a real personal Satan, the deceiver! ;-)

Hard to discuss this since my impression is that 'Christians' actually
beleive all kinds of things, often disagreeing in the process. e.g.
Some believe in 'creationism' and insist this must be true from 'The
Bible' whereas others understand 'The Bible' in quite different ways.
Some need Popes and Bishops, others do without.

And this is different from how many other areas where you have
tightly-held beliefs?


Rather a curious rhetorical question based on a presumption.

My view is that:

1) I have no idea if a deity exists or not.

2) I see no physical evidence or experimental result which
would allow me to clearly decide one did.

3) I feel no reason to presume one does.

4) Even given one did I see no reason to decide that 'Christianity'
is the one true version of such a deity's nature, etc.

5) Even given 'Christianity' I see no reason to pick any given
version of that religion as being 'correct'. Although some
versions seem rather dubious when they espouse 'creationism'
or other similar ideas that conflict with the usual
scientific methods.

6) I can't say the above concerns or bothers me much. Although
I am concerned by ideas like creationism and 'intelligent
design'being presented as if they were 'science', that isn't
directly relevant to the primary points like (1) and (2).

7) Given the scientific and rational methods that are
demonstrably useful for other questions I'd tend to
apply them here *if* there was any way via (2). Failing
that I fall back on Occam. i.e. the standard default
approach in rational scientific methods that allows
us to avoid putting our faith in whatever fairies,
fancy mains cables, etc, others may insist we accept.

8) Quite happy to accept that a deity may well exist
even if I have no idea they do... or may not exist.
As I said in (1) I have no idea. Can't tell.


Which of those are "tightly held beliefs" in your own belief? Must
say they they don't seem particularly fanatical or unreasonable to
me.


So whereas your view of agnostics and athesists that they 'invarably'
are as you claim.

The point is that there are very few people who have a coherent, relvant
set of disbeliefs.

You'd have to explain that statement in a way that made sense for me to
comment. :-) 'Disbeliefs' may be a word in American English I haven't
previously encountered, or you have used a definition that I have missed in
the context of your assertion of opinion. :-)

If you mean some people are religious (or anti-religeous) nutcases, then I
agree with you. Ditto if you mean many people believe what suits them, or
gives them the feeling they can tell others what to believe or do.


Then we could perhaps that idea of 'theism' more seriously. At present
it is odd how many different 'One Gods' there seem to be *if* you
accept what the various beleivers say. :-)

I respect informed disbelief, and I do occasionally find it. However,
many are about as lucid and clear as say, Phildo from AAPLS or Middius
at RAO.

I'm sure there are 'rabid' atheists and anti-religeous people who are
as fanatic and aggressive as some of the religious fanatics. But so far as
I know the existence of neither of those classes counts as real evidence
either for or against the claim that a deity exists (or not) and is as
described by any specific religion/sect/creed/etc.

Nor am I clear what definition you mean for "informed disbelief" as it
sounds curiously like jargon. How can you be "informed" about a lack
of testable evidence, etc? Again, you'd have to use some English I
can follow for me to comment more specifically. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Philips TDA1541A S1 DAC
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote


One of the first mistakes that Europeans seem to make is to asume that UK
English is the world standard for English.

There is no "world standard" for English. Even within the individual
"English speaking nations" there are variations, whilst the differences
between them can be significant. But this is a UK newsgroup, so on this
group "English English" prevails.

David.

Teaching the English about how to use *our* language...
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote

IME most agnostics and atheists reject Christianity based on ignorance

I probably know more about Christianity than most Christians do. I've found
it a fascinating subject. And the more I know about it the less I understand
how anyone can "believe" in it. Of course the most obvious point is that
hardly any two Christians actually agree as to what Christianity teaches
them. We have creationists (or believers in "intelligent design" as they now
style themselves), some of whom believe that the world is only 6000 or so
years old, and some who accept that it's a lot older. But then again many
Christians regard Genesis as being a collection of allegories and myths, not
to be taken as literally true. Some Christians believe in "original sin"
others don't. Some regard Jesus as "God", others don't. Some regard the Pope
as "the Holy Father", others see him as the Anti-Christ, etc etc.etc.

and/or anxiety.

Anxiety about what?

Invariably they start talking about Christianity, and one has to marvel at
how supposedly intelligent people could get so many things so wrong and
prove it so rapidly.

Just how I feel listening to Christians talking about their faith!

It is almost enough to make one believe in a real personal Satan, the
deceiver! ;-)

You mean you don't anyway?

David.

Teaching the English about how to use *our* language...
 

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:06:47 -0000, "David Looser"
wrote:

IME most agnostics and atheists reject Christianity based on ignorance

I probably know more about Christianity than most Christians do. I've found
it a fascinating subject. And the more I know about it the less I understand
how anyone can "believe" in it. Of course the most obvious point is that
hardly any two Christians actually agree as to what Christianity teaches
them. We have creationists (or believers in "intelligent design" as they now
style themselves), some of whom believe that the world is only 6000 or so
years old, and some who accept that it's a lot older. But then again many
Christians regard Genesis as being a collection of allegories and myths, not
to be taken as literally true. Some Christians believe in "original sin"
others don't. Some regard Jesus as "God", others don't. Some regard the Pope
as "the Holy Father", others see him as the Anti-Christ, etc etc.etc.

Almost nobody believes in Christianity, including Krueger. There are
perhaps a few hundred actual Christians in the world, to be found in
the murderous armies of central Africa. For the rest, religion is made
up by the individuals as they go along, a minute-by-minute invention
based on the man-made moral code and the current state of scientific
knowledge. 99% of the bible is entirely beyond the moral pale,
recommending as it is of genocide, infanticide, child rape,
cannibalism to name but a few of its choicer recommendation. What
remains is what decent people think without its spurious
intercessions.

Why anyone should want to waste their time in this fashion is quite
beyond reason, but there are those who find it necessary,
unfortunately.

d