Starboy

seanie,

Thank you for your help. I am sure you based your comments after reading the entire conversation between Tabula_rasa and me. I was restating that last sentence because it appeared to me the he could not distinguish the difference. In the interest of clarity I was trying to restate the sentence that could appear ambiguous to users of English that are used to employing slang and colloquialisms. My use of the word atheism may not be at this time the most popular but it is the original meaning and in my opinion the most true to the English language. It also reflects my sentiments exactly.

Starboy

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

seanie

Starboy

I'm glad you appreciate my help.

In the interests of clarity I was just pointing out that although you stated;

I and many others would regard those two sentences as semantically identical.

As to your use of the word atheism I've already said I don't have a problem with it.

I was merely asking, politely, if you would be courteous enough to allow others to use the word as it is more commonly defined.

Starboy

Not a problem seanie, when I use the word I usually am clear to make the distinction and also it is common for me to use it as a-theist to further clarify my distinctive use. My hope is that if I use it enough, then enough people will use it as it was originally defined and thus undo the redefinition made by the Catholic church as a tatic to further persecute infidels. Also I consider myself a scientist and science is a-theistic, so it matches well with my overall worldview.

Starboy

Quetzal

[WARNING: Utterly irrelevant off-topic post follows.]

Just 'cause I felt like being more-than-usually pedantic today (I'm working on financial projections and needed a break ), there is in fact a semantic difference between the two sentences under consideration. There isn't, however, any real functional difference in any conversation I can possibly imagine where one or the other would come up. Permit me to illustrate:

This sentence makes a distinct statement about the existence (or non-existence) of the sentence's object. Restating the functional clause as a positive: atheists believe God does not exist. Compare this clause with: This sentence makes a distinct statement about the state of mind of the subject of the sentence - and really says nothing about the object. The functional clause here is actually: atheists are people who don't have [a particular] belief. In this case the subject is being defined by lack of a belief. In the first sentence, the statement concerns the reality of the object.

You're getting confused over the grammatical use of "belief/believe" in the two sentences. In the first, the subject is performing an action on the object (don't believe = actively disbelieving). In the second, the word "belief" is part of the adjectival phrase "to have a belief" which modifies the subject.

So yeah, if you want to split a reeeaaaallllly fine semantic hair, they do mean two different things.

[End irrelevant commentary. You are now returned to your regularly scheduled topic.]

Morpho the Incurable Grammarian

Starboy

Thanks for clearing that up. I did seem to me that there was difference in the two sentences.

Starboy

mibby529

Actually, some creationism is taught in schools. Remember that thing about Indians being from Siberia? Pure creationism. It was based on creationism. It contradicts plate tectonics, Ice Age climates, anthropology, archeology, and anthropometry. It would require that 20-30 million km^3 of water just disappear. (Remember, if water freezes anywhere other than land, 90% of it is still underwater.)

That's not all. I still remember when I was in second grade, this teacher from New York was assigned to our school. We were studying dinosaurs, and her theodicy was interesting to say the least.

Oh, and another teacher I had was this Mormon who claimed that Quetzalcoatl had curly hair and a beard.

"Two things are infinite: The universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the former."
-Albert Einstein

GeoTheo

Where did the indians come from then?
What do you mean by theodicy as relates to dinosaurs? Also if you have traditional native American beliefs don't you believe in a creator God? I am surrounded by three reservations and saw a dance with participants from all three tribes and all talked about "the Creator".

Mageth

Actually, some creationism is taught in schools. Remember that thing about Indians being from Siberia? Pure creationism. It was based on creationism. It contradicts plate tectonics, Ice Age climates, anthropology, archeology, and anthropometry. It would require that 20-30 million km^3 of water just disappear. (Remember, if water freezes anywhere other than land, 90% of it is still underwater.)

Huh? Not according to what I've read. Where do you propose Native Americans came from, then?

<a href="http://whyfiles.org/061polar/anthro.html" target="_blank">Land bridge dating</a>

<a href="http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF15/1579.html" target="_blank">Coastall migration from the Bering land bridge</a>

<a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/20000205/fob2.asp" target="_blank">Another article on the land bridge and seafloor discoveries</a>

And the ice sheets were on land. Large expanses of North America and Eurasia were covered by them.

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

ps418

Mibby: It would require that 20-30 million km^3 of water just disappear.

I haven't followed the whole thread, so I may be missing something. However, I think what you mean is that "It would require that 20-30 million km^3 of water be moved from the ocean basins to the continents," not "It would require that 20-30 million km^3 of water just disappear." The evidence is quite clear that the land-based ice volume at the Last Glacial Maximum was about 50x10^6 km3 in excess of that which exists today (about 25x10^6 km3). You can find numerous references and arguments on this thread: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000284&p=" target="_blank">Solving the mystery of the Biblical Flood? </a>

Patrick