"Don Pearce" wrote in message

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"?

English is a second language or no language at all in many parts of India.

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."

India is a far more diverse country than the US.

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

It seems like the cold, wet climate makes many people from the UK sound
snotty too much of the time. ;-)

"David Looser" wrote in
message
"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.

Good to hear that said.

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.

Yes, it is what is used the most. Also, the dialect of English English that
is used here is not all that different from the American English that is
used here.

"David Looser" wrote in
message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

IME most agnostics and atheists reject Christianity
based on ignorance

I probably know more about Christianity than most
Christians do.

Given the low bar for entry to the set of Christians, that might be true.


I've found it a fascinating subject. And
the more I know about it the less I understand how anyone
can "believe" in it.

That of course depends on which part of more you are involved with.

Of course the most obvious point is
that hardly any two Christians actually agree as to what
Christianity teaches them.

That is not necessarily a bad thing.

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,

That takes suspension of a whole lot of disbelief!

and some who accept that it's a lot older.

That seems pretty obvious.

But then again many Christians regard Genesis as
being a collection of allegories and myths, not to be
taken as literally true.

Actually, it is both.

Furthermore, creation is a relatively small part of the Genesis story.

Some Christians believe in "original sin" others don't.

Those who don't are missing many important points.

Some regard Jesus as "God", others don't.

Denying that Jesus is God removes one from much of the teachings of
Christianity.

Some regard the Pope as "the Holy Father",
others see him as the Anti-Christ, etc etc.etc.

He is obviously neither.

and/or anxiety.

Anxiety about what?

Anxiety about the possible consequences of believing Christianity. Having
random insults thrown at you in Audio newsgroups, for example! ;-)

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 a fundamental teaching of Christianity that you can't understand it
without believing some key points.

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

You mean you don't anyway?

All the stupidity in the world needs explaining, no?

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

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.

True if one learns to write proper polite rhetoric and throws in a
strategically-placed "all", and if one is sufficiently broad in what one
considers to be Christianity.

There are perhaps a few hundred actual
Christians in the world, to be found in the murderous
armies of central Africa.

Obviously, an excluded-middle argument.

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.

That statement can be interpreted to mean that you have to be religious to
be current with the man-made moral
code and the current state of scientific knowledge. Otherwise, it is no
fault to be current the man-made moral
code and the current state of scientific knowledge, and mentioning that in
conjunction with religiousness is gratuitous.

It is my view that all true Christianity and all true Science must agree. Of
course being imperfect humans, we lack knowlege of the complete truth in
both areas.


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.

The error here is taking the absolutely bizarre position that everything
that is mentioned is recommended. I guess you similarly believe that "Crime
and Punishment" recommends murder.

What remains is what decent people think
without its spurious intercessions.

Whatever that means in the context of the many bizarre and obviously flawed
claims that proceed it.

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

Given the obvious prejudices and misapprehensions of the writer...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Don Pearce" wrote in message

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"?

English is a second language or no language at all in many parts of India.

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."

India is a far more diverse country than the US.

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

It seems like the cold, wet climate makes many people from the UK sound
snotty too much of the time. ;-)

**Better snotty than a bunch of stupid creationists.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Almost half of the US population believes in that twaddle. Sheesh!


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
It is a fundamental teaching of Christianity that you can't understand
it without believing some key points.

Given the various sects can't agree on those 'key points', a fatuous
argument.

A 'belief' by the nature of the word means you think you are correct.
Regardless of any accepted proofs to the contrary.

I find it quite strange you are in favour of scientific testing of cables
etc - yet accept this mumbo jumbo as fact.

--
*If you remember the '60s, you weren't really there

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Don Pearce" wrote in message

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"?

English is a second language or no language at all in
many parts of India.
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."

India is a far more diverse country than the US.

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

It seems like the cold, wet climate makes many people
from the UK sound snotty too much of the time. ;-)

**Better snotty than a bunch of stupid creationists.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Almost half of the US population believes in that
twaddle. Sheesh!

Prove it.

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Almost half of the US population believes in that
twaddle. Sheesh!

Prove it.

How better than the Gallup Poll quoted?

--
*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Don Pearce" wrote in message

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"?

English is a second language or no language at all in
many parts of India.
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."

India is a far more diverse country than the US.

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

It seems like the cold, wet climate makes many people
from the UK sound snotty too much of the time. ;-)

**Better snotty than a bunch of stupid creationists.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Almost half of the US population believes in that
twaddle. Sheesh!

Prove it.

**I provided one survey (a rather conservative one, as it happens). I've
seen several others, which demonstrate that the figure lies somewhere
between 40% and 60% (one survey cited 63%!). If you have alternate data,
please present it. I'd rather snotty over stupid any day.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:18:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

All the stupidity in the world needs explaining, no?

No. It needs recognizing, combating, avoiding, studying.... When
such understanding is incomplete, some people try to cop out by
"explaining". If nothing else, it shifts the blame.