• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Any input?

Do you want grammar/syntax/spelling corrections? Or just idea/premise/evidence corrections? Or both?

Sorry. I'm an English geek. I always see the mechanical problems first.

It's what I do. ;)
 
slingblade said:
Do you want grammar/syntax/spelling corrections? Or just idea/premise/evidence corrections? Or both?

Sorry. I'm an English geek. I always see the mechanical problems first.

It's what I do. ;)
Click to expand...
So, do you hate it when people use apostrophe's for plural words?
:D
 
slingblade said:
I don't understand why you ask.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure.

Apostrophe Ultimate Style: The Rule of Writting.

An apostrophe is used to signal letter omission in contractions.
  • Don’t tell me that I’m beautiful; it’s obvious enough.
Some people like to use an apostrophe plus s to make certain words and terms plural; others prefer to skip the apostrophe and just use s. For example, the New York Times writes CD’s when they’re talking about more than one CD; other newspapers just say CDs.

Both ways are correct; inclusion of the apostrophe is a matter of preference. Whichever way you choose, be sure to stay consistent.
Click to expand...

Of course "apostrophe's" isn't a contraction as joobs says it's a plural. You didn't use apostrophes with any plural words (that I can see).
 
Last edited:
Oh, was he trying to make fun of me? Odd. I'm usually hypersensitive to that and can spot it right away.

Except, I didn't make a mistake. Maybe that's why it made no sense.
 
Oh, oh, 10rca.

Looks great so far. I'm really impressed with the depth of it. I've only given it a cursory look so far.
 
slingblade said:
Oh, was he trying to make fun of me? Odd. I'm usually hypersensitive to that and can spot it right away.

Except, I didn't make a mistake. Maybe that's why it made no sense.
Click to expand...
Perhaps he thinks it's is plural and not a contraction of "it is".

FWIW, I had a nasty habit of using an apostrophe in pronouns, "the car lost it's tire". I knew better but I would type it and not even notice. Perhaps because an apostrophe is added to a noun to show possession I subconsciously would add it to some pronouns. "the car's tire was flat"
 
slingblade said:
Do you want grammar/syntax/spelling corrections? Or just idea/premise/evidence corrections? Or both?

Sorry. I'm an English geek. I always see the mechanical problems first.

It's what I do. ;)
Click to expand...

Hah.

I'm working on a 'Fitzgeraldian' style, replacing both parenthesis and semi-colons with dashes. I know there's some consistency problems with their use inside the essay, but I'll take care of them on my own in time.

If you mean other errors, go ahead, I revised and edited only about a day after I wrote the whole thing, so I'm sure I missed a few. Hopefully not a million.
 
slingblade said:
Oh, was he trying to make fun of me? Odd. I'm usually hypersensitive to that and can spot it right away.

Except, I didn't make a mistake. Maybe that's why it made no sense.
Click to expand...
No, I wasn't making fun of anyone. I was just trying to do a grammar joke. One of my closest friends is a newspaper editor (actually, he now edits for a magazine). His biggest pet peeve is when people put apostrophes in words that are supposed to be simply plural. Everytime we go out, there will be bill boards, menus, etc. that make that error.

He hates it.
 
RandFan said:
Perhaps he thinks it's is plural and not a contraction of "it is".

FWIW, I had a nasty habit of using an apostrophe in pronouns, "the car lost it's tire". I knew better but I would type it and not even notice. Perhaps because an apostrophe is added to a noun to show possession I subconsciously would add it to some pronouns. "the car's tire was flat"
Click to expand...

Did I miss something here? "It's what I do" is correct -- "It is what I do."

As for "its", the possessive of "it", as in "its dog is purple", just remember that it's like "his" or "hers" -- "its". You don't write "hi's dog", or "the tree is her's".
 
slingblade said:
Oh, okay. My bad, then. I did readily admit I'm hypersensitive. :o
Click to expand...
not your fault. It was my failed attempt at self-depricating humor. I'm terrible with grammar and punctuation.

Anyway, back to the OP. Sorry for the derail, IOrca
I have only 2 comments (i read only up to the sourced arguments: section).

1.)
Throughout theocratic history, fideism has been a subject of scorn...
Click to expand...
this line comes too soon in your argument. First explain the problem with fideism. that there is no reason one unsubstantiated belief supercedes any other, then go into the historical context. give an example of the scorn, by whom was it scornful, give a quote to a founding father (if one exists.) to hammer home that point. Otherwise, you are simply making an appeal to (past) authority.

2.) You argument of god as axiom seems to take the premise that god is material (perhaps I'm saying this wrong). That god can be found through methodology. I've seen that this doesn't seem to be a universal truth for many people and will not work. I do not know how you can address this, though.

Perhaps you can use a paraphrase of the concept i've seen here.
1. If god can't be measured/observed, god has no effect in our world.
2.) If god has no effect on our world, the his existence or lack of existence is identical
3.) the simplist working model, therefore, is that god does not exist.
 
You've got a good point on the Fideism aspect, but I don't want to make a big argument about it. The argument is there, and re-appears at the end, just to pursuade the idea out of otherwise rational folk's heads. If I really do need to commit a strong agrument to people being fideists, I don't think my other more difficult points presented with evidence will do at all -- the essay is more geared towards people willing to be rational and accept evidence, and for atheists/agnostics/non-theists to equip them with simple, straightfoward arguments.

But I will edit out the illogical argument you've shown. I don't need it, and it just hinders the whole point as it is. But the direct statement aspect, the "thesis" of each paragraph, is present in nearly all my arguments.

2.) You argument of god as axiom seems to take the premise that god is material (perhaps I'm saying this wrong). That god can be found through methodology. I've seen that this doesn't seem to be a universal truth for many people and will not work. I do not know how you can address this, though.
Click to expand...

Actually, my points are sort of different, and I noticed before how I could be more clear with my argument. I'm not trying to argue from a point of simplicity as much as argue that taking god as an axioms can be as justifiably replaced as taking any other sort of elaborate explanation for metaphysical and epistemological questions. But since you point it out, I think it would be worth to construct your suggestion into another argument. What stays me from this, and makes me deliberate on it, is that the argument doesn't provide a good motivational argument to non-scientists and psilosophers, in my opinion, to question their faith. I'd rather set people minds to this point through the mass of the essay, than directly confront it the way contemplating about "working models" would dictate.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom