Proof that God exists.

[Cris]

Chosen,

The statement 'evolution is fact' is not a blanket statement. It is a truthful assertion. What people might find confusing by this is if they think this refers to the explanations of evolution, i.e. the theories.

So I agree a statement like 'evolution is fact and theory' certainly helps and we should take care to distinguish between the two characteristics in debate.

I think on this issue we should be in agreement by now.

But nevertheless, evolution has occurred, and that is fact, so 'evolution is a fact' should be seen as an acceptable statement, duly qualified if needed.

Cris

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Cris
Chosen,

No. You don’t understand atheism. Atheism is a disbelief in the claims made by theists for the existence of a god or gods. A rejection of God implies an acceptance of his existence and then a choice to reject his authority. That is not atheism.

Cris

Then this is all semantics, really. I go by the dictionary to avoid such interpretations of atheistism. You look at it differently, I will hold my perspective of what atheistism is by definition. You may hold your interpretation on this matter.

Atheism doctrine that denies the existence of deity. Atheism differs distinctly from agnosticism, the doctrine that the existence of deity can be neither proved nor disproved. Many people have incorrectly been called atheists merely because they rejected a popular belief in a particular form of divinity. With the increase in scientific knowledge and the consequent scientific explanation of phenomena formerly considered supernatural, atheism has become a less controversial philosophical position.

Agnosticism, doctrine that the existence of God and other spiritual beings is neither certain nor impossible. The term was introduced into English in the 19th century by British biologist Thomas Henry Huxley. The agnostic position is distinct from both theism, which affirms the existence of such beings, and atheism, which denies their existence.

Theism, religious belief in one Supreme Being who is the source and sustainer of the universe and at the same time is distinguished from it. As such, this belief is opposed to atheism. Theism is now usually understood to mean the doctrine of the one, supreme, personal God.

Skepticism, philosophical doctrine that denies the possibility of attaining knowledge of reality apart from human perception. Skepticism is based on views about the scope and validity of human knowledge.

Materialism, in philosophy, doctrine that all existence is resolvable into matter or into an attribute or effect of matter. According to this doctrine, matter is the ultimate reality, and the phenomenon of consciousness is explained by physiochemical changes in the nervous system.

Animism, belief in spiritual beings. Among biologists and psychologists, animism refers to the view that the human mind is a nonmaterial entity that interacts with the body via the brain and nervous system. As a philosophical theory, animism, usually called panpsychism, is the doctrine that all objects in the world have an inner or psychological being. Since the late 19th century, however, the term has been mainly associated with anthropology and British anthropologist Sir Edward Burnett Tylor, who described the origin of religion and aboriginal beliefs in terms of animism.

There's also Polytheism, but we can forget about that.

Grounds for Belief
Some degree of belief in a Holy Being has existed in almost all societies throughout history. The primary basis for belief in God is founded in experience, especially religious experience. This belief has been challenged by philosophical doctrines of skepticism, materialism, atheism, and other forms of disbelief. Atheists absolutely deny the existence of God. Agnostics believe the evidence for and against God's existence is inconclusive. Positivists believe it is meaningless either to affirm or deny the existence of God.

Source: Encyclopedia Encarta® 02 Desk Encyclopedia © & 1996-97 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Cris, don't cause atheism to become so sophisticated that it has different meanings. You will make it like religions where, which one is correct? Atheism is already spreading like religions, all different interpretations, look at Adam's thread.

I argue for simplicity. Clearly I am not an atheist, they absolutely deny the existence of God or Gods. Agnosticism is not what you defined it to be.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Re: TheChosen

Originally posted by Adam


Well, let's go have a look...

You should stop arguing with me Adam.

Assuming knowledge of the thoughts of another.

Oh really? Don't take parts of a truth and turn it into a lie. Cris mentioned, "Without supporting evidence or further observations it is not reasonable to reach a conclusion either way."

He doesn't believe in any current idea of the origin of the universe so he could avoid my claim that he does indeed have some sort of faith. He simply can't know what has happened, therefore he refuses to believe anything.

Assuming knowledge of how I, as an atheist, think.

Wrong Adam, you just assumed youself. Nice idiotic move there. I stated, "Atheists love to..."

Did I explicitly say "all atheistis?"

Or did you assume that so it would apply to you?

Evidence? Any supporting facts at all?

Now you make a move to try to discredit me. Great Adam, this is pathetic.

At least you don't deny that evolution has facts supporting it. A good start.

You still haven't prove yourself. Why don't you back up that pitiful mouth of yours? Ignoring what facts?

I thought so Adam.

Absolutely, in the links I provided many times.

What is "substantial" to you?

A deliberately misleading comment. The theory of the Big Bang is based upon observed and repeatable science. As the science-minded chap you clearly are, you must know this.

Misleading? So are you saying the Big Bang doesn't involve probabilities? What do you know about the beginning of time? The inflation fields and non-inflation fields? What did Stephen Hawking say at the very beginning of the Big Bang? Read up on it and come back to me.

Seems to me the meanings are almost identical in most regards and completely identical in some. I suspect that you may require the use of the word "suspect" in place of "believe". I also suspect you don't know what "perspicacity" means.

"seems to me..." - Your interpretations. Whatever, and you "suspect" this and that? Assumptions are almost worthless Adam.

If you wish to continue discussing these matters, I suggest you go and read some first. What Cris described is not Agnosticism. Agnosticism involves a doubt that we humans can ever know God. The acceptance of the existence of God is fundamental to the Agnostic belief. An Agnostic believes in God and also believes we humans can not know that god of any fundamental truth of the universe.

I do not wish to argue over semantics and interpretations. I follow the dictionary, ok? Not human interpretations. Agnostic doesn't believe in God, look up my earlier thread describing different doctrines.

And no, they aren't my interpretations, they are the dictionaries and encyclopedia's.

Having rejected the probability of any god, why would there be such a search at all? Use logic, kiddo. An atheist will most likely never undertake such a search, for there is no reason for it. That is the logic. Try it some time.

Tell that to Cris. Great, atheists already disagree with each other. I think, you guys could make your own "religions" soon, but more appropiate for it is your own institutions. Then you all may argue who's right and who's not. I don't want to be a part of it and all those nasty interpretations.

As previously explained, chance plays very little or no part in theories of the Big Bang and evolution and such. I suggest you read through the links I have already provided. You may decry "chance" as illogical all you wish and use it as a reason for your arguments, but the fact is you are decrying something you yourself, and only you, have introduced. This completely nulifies any arguments based on that assertion.

I didn't say "chance" was illogical. So don't even bother to mention it to me. Once again read up on the Big Bang.

This clearly indicates you have never read on the evolution of human behaviours. "Moral absolutes" are based on survival and on Hamilton's Rule. Being so well-read on evolution theory, you must know all about this too...

Really? First off, what are "moral absolutes" to you? I hope it is not some twisted definition. And if you do believe in such, name me a moral absolute that are "based on survival and on Hamilton's rule."

The "explosion", as you say, is only a very small part of Big Bang theory. This it does not "rely" on chance. It relies on pretty much all of physics. As a science-minded chap, you surely know this.

Small part?! Without it there would not have been a Big Bang. You consider that a "small part"? You probably have some twisted logic, right? There is still randomness involved.

IF the Big Bang did not inflate at a certain rate, as Stephen Hawking mention at exactly millionths of decimals PRECISE, then there would be ultimate collapse and NO Big Bang.

Well, I've quoted you enough. I'm sure that you, being so rational and all, can see what you have posted. Good day.

Yea, I've quoted all your profligate posts enough also.

Good Day.

 

[Cris]

Chosen,

Sometimes some things defy simply explanations. And when an imprecise language is involved and the many views held by many people then to attempt simplifications might just mean you are plain wrong for most of the time. But I agree it would be nice.

It is unfortunate that those quotes from Encarta seem quite untypical and very misleading, and somewhat dated. Unfortunately even most dictionaries do not yet show the correct definition of atheism. The very latest in some do have corrections.

The best source is from places that deal with atheism and atheists on a daily basis and which reflect state of the art thinking in this area.

Try the Atheism Web for a good definition of atheism and a good enough definition of agnosticism.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

For a more detailed discussion on atheism, it's meaning and the definitions of agnosticism then I'll point you to probably the best book on the subject - The Case Against God, by George H Smith.

To communicate effectively we do need to use the same terms and agree on their definitions. And this is not so easy as it should be and I think a lot of the misunderstandings between us are because we are using different definitions and assumptions.

Take care
Cris

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Ah the "stoner" returns

Originally posted by Tyler
That's not theism. Theism is a belief that God exists. I hold that there's a possibility God exists. Doesn't make me a theist.

I accept the possibility of God existing, then I believe God exists.

You see the possibility of God existing, but do you accept it? Accept as in regarding as true; believe in.

There's no reason to believe in a God. There's reason to believe in the Big Bang theory. I may be wrong here, but I take it Cris, like myself, acknowledges the fact that the Big Bang theory could be wrong. A vast majority of theists (and certainly almost every single one of them on sciforums) do not believe they could be wrong.

So you are completely lacking of any possible beliefs? The reason some scientists believe the Big Bang is because they wish to pursue this "truth" so they could wish to prove it.

Just because of theists, I hope you are not just flat out disregarding our belief system, that would be a big mistake to make, IMO.

I believe in evolution theory because so far it seems perfectly logical. There is no logical arguement to support god. Of course, I still keep in mind that evolution theory could be wrong.

"Seems perfectly logical."? What's up with you and the word "perfectly" this and that? You are living in fantasy land, or maybe you have just been "smoking up" too much.

That would be me. Chosen you seem to hold humans in an absurdly high regard. I fail to see what's wrong with accepting that we do not yet know everything. You're beginning to sound like Nelson here Chosen.

No Tyler, just means you have just limited yourself. Since you don't know what happened with man's origins, then you don't wish to explore it, correct? You don't question yourself on this matter? You just look towards answers and no questions? Believing this and that, always raises questions to prove it, that is why it is a catalyst for aquiring knowledge. It's my perspective that I keep.

We "should" be similar people Tyler, look at our signatures.

Tyler's: Great are not those who hold the answers, but those who pose the questions.

You see a similarity? Hope so.

Wrongo. Why must theists never know what atheism is? Is it like a rule you guys have or something?

Bullshit Tyler. Who's right here? Should I follow Cris's advice on what atheism really is? Or Adam's, Xev's, or yours??

That site Cris gave me, I visited a long time ago arguing with other atheists in other forums, so I might consider that definition IF everyone here would just agree to an absolute one. Then I may consider it for the sake of simplicity.

Atheism can mean many different things to many different people. As millions of different people and millions of different views on god and religion. It would be stupid to make up a word for every form of view on god. So, we have atheism, agnosticism and theism. Theism is the belief that god exists, no debate. Agnosticism is the belief that humans cannot comprehend god. Atheism covers things from there is no chance in god being real to there is no reason to believe in god, therefore I don't.

You just answered your own question on, "Why must theists never know what atheism is?" Good job. Also you defined agnosticism wrongly (it just isn't that), so you can happily anti-identify yourself as an atheist.

How great.

 

[Adam]

TheChosen

Now let's have a look at this rationally. I quoted some of your nonsense, only from the last couple of pages of this very thread. No need to look into all your other stuff. I posted your own words, along with clear explanations of how ludicrous they are. What was your logical, rational, well-considered response?

You should stop arguing with me Adam.

Don't take parts of a truth and turn it into a lie.

You still haven't prove yourself. Why don't you back up that pitiful mouth of yours? Ignoring what facts?

All very rational and logical. Brilliant. Again, I have backed up every piece of theory and opinion with essays, reports, guides, and so on, which you have continued to ignore. Congratulations.

Wrong Adam, you just assumed youself. Nice idiotic move there. I stated, "Atheists love to..."... Did I explicitly say "all atheistis?"... Or did you assume that so it would apply to you?

If you say "Humans are green", does that not include me? You spoke of atheists. You made no mention of any sub-set of atheists. Don't try to go back and change things. You said it, live with it.

Now you make a move to try to discredit me. Great Adam, this is pathetic.

TheChosen, there is no need to discredit you. Your own words fo the job nicely. I quoted your own words, which you then denied with insults. That is not the mark of an intelligent chap.

What is "substantial" to you?

The links I provided many times, which you ignored as many times.

Misleading? So are you saying the Big Bang doesn't involve probabilities?

Of course it does. It involves things which are probable. Not things which are unlikely, but things which are probable.

Assumptions are almost worthless Adam.

Oh really? what exactly were those assumptions you made earlier? Here are just a few:

So, in your mind right now, you don't believe in the origin of the universe and you don't question about it.

Atheists love to immediately state it is a fact without considering how much and how strong evidence they have of it.

Yes, I believe that God exists.

Assumptions. Worth how much?

Now, onward...

I do not wish to argue over semantics and interpretations. I follow the dictionary, ok? Not human interpretations. Agnostic doesn't believe in God, look up my earlier thread describing different doctrines.

You clearly do not follow what is said in dictionaries. I provided some dictionary definitions. Here is another for you:

From dictionary.com
"One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God."

From wordsmyth.com
"One who believes it is impossible to know anything about the existence of God or the essential nature of anything."

From m-w.com
"A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable."

I didn't say "chance" was illogical. So don't even bother to mention it to me.

Nor did I say chance was illogical. I did not bring up chance at all. You did. You made the assumption that evolutionary theory relies on chance when you assumed "God or chance". I commented that such a choice does not exist since chance is not, as you seem to assert with such comments, a major factor in evolution theory.

Really? First off, what are "moral absolutes" to you? I hope it is not some twisted definition. And if you do believe in such, name me a moral absolute that are "based on survival and on Hamilton's rule."

A moral absolute based on our evolution/biology and on Hamilton's Rule: Don't kill your own offspring. Please tell me how twisted that is.

TheChosen, I have quoted your own words. Since your arrival here you have made baseless assetions such as those I have quoted for you twice now, with not once shred of supporting evidence or logic, as I have demonstrated. In several threads I have asked you to back things up with any substance, and you continue to refuse. You only reponses are insults. Do you really think this encourages people to take you at all seriously? Once again, I invite you to back up all your assertions and opinions with any substance. Please do.

 

[James R]

The Chosen:

<i>Every explanation is a theory, it just depends on the evidence for it to call it a "strong" or "weak" theory.</i>

That's what I said. So we agree.

I think you're making an unimportant distinction in the current discussion. It is purely semantic. Perhaps we can overcome this simply by rephasing the initial statement. Instead of "Darwin's theory of evolution is a fact", I am happy to say that "Darwin's theory of evolution is a theory which explains all the available evidence about the development of life on our planet. Hence, it is an excellent theory - the best we have in its field. It's explanations are in accordance with the facts."

Happy?

Some comments on your other posts:

<i>Skepticism, philosophical doctrine that denies the possibility of attaining knowledge of reality apart from human perception.</i>

That's a definition from the philosophical history of the ancient Greek skeptics. It is quite different from the sense in which that word is used by skeptical societies such as CSICOP, to take one example. Scientific skepticism is an approach to evaluating extraordinary claims, not an <i>a priori</i> assumption that such claims are untrue or limited in some way.

<i>IF the Big Bang did not inflate at a certain rate, as Stephen Hawking mention at exactly millionths of decimals PRECISE, then there would be ultimate collapse and NO Big Bang.</i>

Sounds like you're heading down the "argument from ignorance" road. It is not true that because we don't know all the details of how something happened that God must have done it. That is the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

JamesR following the same road as Adam?

Originally posted by James R
That's what I said. So we agree.

I think you're making an unimportant distinction in the current discussion. It is purely semantic. Perhaps we can overcome this simply by rephasing the initial statement. Instead of "Darwin's theory of evolution is a fact", I am happy to say that "Darwin's theory of evolution is a theory which explains all the available evidence about the development of life on our planet. Hence, it is an excellent theory - the best we have in its field. It's explanations are in accordance with the facts."

Happy?

Agreed.

Sounds like you're heading down the "argument from ignorance" road. It is not true that because we don't know all the details of how something happened that God must have done it. That is the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Don't be an Adam and assume. "Sounds like"? I'm didn't mention God at all in that post I made. It was concerning Adam and randomness. And what about "God must have done it"? Must is the wrong terminology,Cris would disagree. You can only believe, not "must, know, or anything like that."

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Re: TheChosen

Originally posted by Adam
All very rational and logical. Brilliant. Again, I have backed up every piece of theory and opinion with essays, reports, guides, and so on, which you have continued to ignore. Congratulations.

Haha, yes you technically "backed up" them up alright, but they were irrelevant, what part of that word do you not understand? You inserted yourself superfluously into this argument, and what did it cause? A waste of my time.

Again, what did I ignore specifically. You make claims but no proof. PROVE IT. Ignore what?

If you say "Humans are green", does that not include me? You spoke of atheists. You made no mention of any sub-set of atheists. Don't try to go back and change things. You said it, live with it.

Adam, from experience, the atheists I have encountered on this forum and others insist on the blanket statement, "evolution is fact" Right, do you agree to that statement? or no? My statement still stands, it is NOT AN ASSUMPTION. I observed and made a statement on my observation.

But any atheist may be delighted in proving me wrong and state oterhwise. Beware, other atheists might feel contempt towards you.

TheChosen, there is no need to discredit you. Your own words fo the job nicely. I quoted your own words, which you then denied with insults. That is not the mark of an intelligent chap.

Insults? I insulted your ideas, not you. Like Cris mentioned, it's up to you to take it personally.

The links I provided many times, which you ignored as many times.

How did I ignore them again? Proof?

I asked "What is substantial TO YOU" not those links.

Why don't you grow your own brain?

Of course it does. It involves things which are probable. Not things which are unlikely, but things which are probable.

And??? Spare me your supernumerary comments. Bringing in "unlikely" and so on, I didn't talk about that.

It was a rhetorical question, just answer, don't add and prolong the argument.

You clearly do not follow what is said in dictionaries. I provided some dictionary definitions. Here is another for you:

"Clearly do not follow"?? How so? Prove it.

Yea you quoted the dictionary, but there are more meanings than that, you narrow-mindedly choose what you wanted, correct?

Nor did I say chance was illogical. I did not bring up chance at all. You did. You made the assumption that evolutionary theory relies on chance when you assumed "God or chance". I commented that such a choice does not exist since chance is not, as you seem to assert with such comments, a major factor in evolution theory.

You wrote, "You may decry "chance" as illogical all you wish and use it as a reason for your arguments"

You brought this idea about chance being illogical superfluously. I brought in the idea of chance.

Genetic drift, you know about that right? Natural selection cannot work without genes from genetic drift. So evolution depends on chance to create new genes. Do you agree or what?

A moral absolute based on our evolution/biology and on Hamilton's Rule: Don't kill your own offspring. Please tell me how twisted that is.

You sure that it is a moral absolute? Some kill their own offspring if it isn't a boy, like in China. From human to human, there is no such thing as "moral absolutes." I hope you understand that, you are logical right?

TheChosen, I have quoted your own words. Since your arrival here you have made baseless assetions such as those I have quoted for you twice now, with not once shred of supporting evidence or logic, as I have demonstrated. In several threads I have asked you to back things up with any substance, and you continue to refuse. You only reponses are insults. Do you really think this encourages people to take you at all seriously? Once again, I invite you to back up all your assertions and opinions with any substance. Please do.

Several threads? Back up? I think we went through this argument already. I agreed to your claims in the old thread "Evolution and Theism" So why should I back up claims that I readily rejected because of new knowledge? Once again, don't add in crap to the argument, you are just needlessly prolonging it.

Your place here is impertinent. My "only" responses are insults? Where? Sorry, I can't take someone seriously if all they do is post links here and there, without showing some knowledge coming out of his own brain.

I'm asking you to back up YOUR ASSERTIONS of me "ignoring facts" and what "half-baked opinions"? What assertions do you want me to back up?? Be more specific instead of making stupid blanket statements.

You have not proven yourself yet Adam.

 

[Adam]

TheChosen

Here I shall provide a very clear example which is indicative of your entire presence here at sciforums.

"Clearly do not follow"?? How so? Prove it.

Very well, then. Let's see...

I go by the dictionary...

Agnosticism, doctrine that the existence of God and other spiritual beings is neither certain nor impossible. The term was introduced into English in the 19th century by British biologist Thomas Henry Huxley. The agnostic position is distinct from both theism, which affirms the existence of such beings, and atheism, which denies their existence.

To which I responded with meanings from actual dictionaries:

From dictionary.com
"One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God."

From wordsmyth.com
"One who believes it is impossible to know anything about the existence of God or the essential nature of anything."

From m-w.com
"A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable."

Proof.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

HAHAHAHA, OMG, do you know where I got that definition from? Look at the source on the bottom of that post.

Adam you are one amusing person.

 

[Adam]

Yes, I saw your source. I will even quote it for you again.

Agnosticism, doctrine that the existence of God and other spiritual beings is neither certain nor impossible. The term was introduced into English in the 19th century by British biologist Thomas Henry Huxley. The agnostic position is distinct from both theism, which affirms the existence of such beings, and atheism, which denies their existence.

Note that Huxley specifically said:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

and:

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what agnosticism asserts and, in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.

Now, if you are going to quote dead guys at me, first understand what those dead guys are saying. Huxley was a man who wanted evidence. Take note of the phrase "do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable." Agnosticism, even by the source you used, is the belief that we can't know without proof. Agnosticism holds that god(s) may be possible, but that we humans can not know without proof. Atheism holds that theism is unlikely in the extreme. One does not preclude the other. What's the point? Don't go declaring so-and-so is an agnostic rather than an atheist, until you know two things: the subject's actual beliefs, and the meanings of atheism and agnosticism.

And now I will provide, again, the dictionary quotes I provided before:

From dictionary.com
"One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God."

From wordsmyth.com
"One who believes it is impossible to know anything about the existence of God or the essential nature of anything."

From m-w.com
"A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable."

Another problem. You quote a source made not only in a very theism-dominated nation, but by Microsoft. Yes, I am discrediting your source. When discussing English words, even those absed on Greek, I do prefer English language dictionaries. As any English speaker should. If you wonder why I say this, please give me the definition of the word "Gauntlet". That exercise should clearly demonstrate.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Adam
Don't go declaring so-and-so is an agnostic rather than an atheist, until you know two things: the subject's actual beliefs, and the meanings of atheism and agnosticism.

You are telling me what to do? Spare me your trash Adam. It is all semantics and different perspectives, who's to say your perspective is right over mine? Where's the absolute? There is none.

Another problem. You quote a source made not only in a very theism-dominated nation, but by Microsoft. Yes, I am discrediting your source. When discussing English words, even those absed on Greek, I do prefer English language dictionaries. As any English speaker should. If you wonder why I say this, please give me the definition of the word "Gauntlet". That exercise should clearly demonstrate.

"Discredit"? LMAO! Spare me this trash statement also, so you are saying you disagree with their definitions, why don't you look up other Encyclopedias and tell me what you see.

My source is...

Based on the text of Encarta Encyclopedia, the best selling general reference encyclopedia in the world.

Encarta® Desk Encyclopedia © & 1996-97 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.

Just an excuse saying "theist-dominated nation" So you are saying their definitions are inaccurate? I hope not, who are you to say they are "not credit worthy" anyway? I pick them over your little opinions anyday.

 

[Adam]

TheChosen, I offered you a way to demonstrate some accuracy and validity yet again, and yet again you ignored it. Go and look up "gauntlet", and tell me what it means. Preferably from an American dictionary.

 

[Firefly]

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~
I pick them over your little opinions anyday.

Just out of interest, why? Simply cos one is a more authoritative truth?

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Adam
TheChosen, I offered you a way to demonstrate some accuracy and validity yet again, and yet again you ignored it. Go and look up "gauntlet", and tell me what it means. Preferably from an American dictionary.

Very well then. Ignore what? Specifically point it out Adam.

Definition 1

gauntlet also gantlet (gônt´lît, gänt´-) noun
1.A protective glove worn with medieval armor.
2.A protective glove with a flared cuff, used in manual labor, in certain sports, and for driving.
3.A challenge: throw down the gauntlet; take up the gauntlet.
4.A dress glove cuffed above the wrist.

[Middle English, from Old French gantelet, diminutive of gant, glove, from Frankish *want.]

Word History: In the first and second editions of The American Heritage Dictionary Usage Notes explained why the spelling gauntlet is acceptable for both gauntlet1 and gauntlet2. Such has not always been the case. The story of gauntlet1, as in to throw down the gauntlet, is unexciting: it comes from the Old French word gantelet, a diminutive of gant, "glove." From the time of its appearance in Middle English (in a work composed in 1449), the word has been spelled with an au as well as an a, still a possible spelling. But the other gauntlet, as in to run the gauntlet, is an alteration of the earlier English form gantlope, which came from the Swedish word gatlopp, a compound of gata, "lane," and lopp, "course." The earliest recorded form of the English word, found in 1646, is gantelope, showing that alteration of the Swedish word had already occurred. The English word was then influenced by the spelling of the word gauntlet, "glove," and in 1676 we find the first recorded instance of the spelling gauntlet for this word, although gantelope is found as late as 1836. From then on spellings with au and a are both found. The au seems to have won out, although one could say that the a is preferable because it reflects the Swedish source. In regard to a word that has been so altered in form, this seems a rather fine point.

Definition 2

gauntlet also gantlet (gônt´lît, gänt´-) noun
1.a. A form of punishment in which men armed with sticks or other weapons arrange themselves in two lines facing each other and beat the person forced to run between them. b. The lines of men so arranged.
2.An onslaught or attack from all sides: "The hostages . . . ran the gauntlet of insult on their way to the airport" (Harper's).
3.A severe trial; an ordeal.

[Alteration (influenced by gauntlet1), of gantlope, from Swedish gatlopp : gata, lane (from Old Swedish) + lopp, course, running (from Middle Low German lop).]

Source: Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

This is from my Microsoft Bookshelf CD, but dictionary.com has it more up to date and several dictionaries.

Bartleby is also a good resource site, as it has the newer editions of the dictionary.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Firefly

Just out of interest, why? Simply cos one is a more authoritative truth?

Adam, is just a poster on the internet. Who would you listen to?

Common sense can be applied here.

 

[Adam]

TheChosen, I am impressed. Every American dictionary I have seen before screwed it up entirely. Congratulations.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Adam
TheChosen, I am impressed. Every American dictionary I have seen before screwed it up entirely. Congratulations.

Ok, if you want to play it that way.

Post the definitions of the following from your "non-american" sources, I want it to come from a creditable source, an Encyclopedia. No un-credited sources like websites, et al.

• Theism
• Atheism
• Agnosticism
• Skepticism
• Materialism
• Animism

The first three are most important. Well see how "different" their definitions of each of those are.

 

[hippo]

few words

So you believe in moral absolutes? You cannot determine a moral absolute unless you want to go around the entire
world and ask every single person's opinion.

If the answer is in unison, then it is a moral absolute, but we will never be able to know this.

Moral unison is not equivalent to moral absolute. Go back and read your introduction to logic books.

Lot of words back and forth on God this and atheist that. Here is a lovely bit of fluff to set people off. The Western World and much of the Eastern is Christ-haunted. The Jews wait for the Christ, the Muslims see him as prophet the Christians worship Him in the Incarnation, Hindus hear hints, etc., etc., There are not too many birthin' sites that do not have some sort of religious nesting material. Most modern atheists or rejectors of God are actually rejecting the religion they were born into. Some hate their parents, some were abused by religious, others took just the right amount of philosophy classes in college and decided they were brainiacs of logic and history and reject the democracy of the historical giants in true holiness and goodness..
How many of you who think the religious-minded are diseased of thought and fools grew up with at least the surface trappings of religion? Come on now, don't be shy. Any cradle atheists here? Common don't be shy...
buh-bye!