So...why is it religions hate each other and atheists?

First topic message reminder :

Having given the topic some serious consideration, I have no idea why the religious hate each other and the irreligious. And vice versa, of course.

Despite being collective worship coordinator at my secondary school, I am an athiest. Not proudly so, I might add - I just don't have faith in a deity or multiples thereof. Having said that, I have no issue with anyone who does. Harnessed in the right way, it can be an astonishing force for good.

I suspect the umbrella I would fall under is humanist, although I have never chosen a banner for myself. I believe in people: the family and friends around me; my students and colleagues; members of the human race in general.

The thing I object to is the evangelising fraternity who,when I politely reject their view of the universe, choose to label me as ... well, all sort of insulting and unfair nonsense. At this stage, please believe that I find Richard Dawkins as irritating as any ayalloah, church elder or priest.

Ultimately, if your religion fascilitates your ability to be a good, kind and humane person, brilliant. If you can be the same without a god, more power to your elbow.

So why can't we leave each other to get on with it?

If “what” is present, inclusion of “who” makes it a sentence; conversely, if “what” is present, exclusion of “who” makes it not a sentence.

"The car's parking brake malfunctioned, causing the vehicle to coast down a hill and into a storefront."

That's a sentence that does not contain a "who" just a "what."

.

I am convinced you are mentally disturbed, there is no other explanation:

Who: “The car's parking brake”

Your English is as fake as your Hebrew, a sentence requires a SUBJECT which can be a " who " and/or a "what " you nitwit, it does not require both to make a COMPLETE sentence.

You just make up shit as you go along, atrocious dishonesty.

LMAO......fake.

I can't say that I hate anyone.

Every sentence must include “who-what” as its necessary core. Without both “who” and “what”, there can be no sentence.

Is very simple to prove your case, simply supply any English Grammar text that confirms your statement, and it better not be from some loonball creationist site. lolol.

That is irrefutable truth.

It isn't. It's been refuted by several of us quite convincingly. You hold onto your statements like the pope holds on to his mitre, Rock, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

You are wrong. Dawkins is an atheist and even in that video he's a an atheist. You're applying your own Norse pantheon theory to your own interpretation of the video. Honestly, this is in your own head. No one else watching that video would have concluded that Dawkins is a theist. So the mental olympics going on in your brain is quite astonishing to witness especially since you won't even acknowledge that you could be wrong.

Your wife must think you're a nightmare.

A proper English sentence contains a noun and a verb. That's all a sentence needs to be a sentence.

Who is a noun implying an animate being such as a person or an animal. What is a noun implying inanimate objects. A car is not a who. It's a what.

The only Who's are in Whoville, Horton.

Hi pilgrim

I don't hate anyone either.

English Complete Sentences: What constitutes a sentence?

Sentences in English have both a subject and a verb.

A subject names who or what the sentence is about. A subject is the actor in the sentence. Subjects can be nouns (persons, places, or things) or noun phrases or gerund phrases.
Nouns are usually signaled by an article (a, an, the). They can be identified by asking who or what is doing an action.
A verb expresses action (jump, think, has been jumping, is thinking) or state of being (is, become). They can be identified by asking what the action is.

http://www.bhsu.edu/Academics/ProgramsMajors/ArtsHumanities/English/WritingResources/CompleteSentences/tabid/944/Default.aspx

Nothing about both who and what being essential , maybe its a Texas thing.

Texas,

please amend all your Genesis/Big Bang gobbledegook accordingly, maybe somebody will read it, I try not to.

Yeah....yeah, I know you don't care.

"Love is all you need" song title but it also helps to have
http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Grammar.html?id=fbRSpB_zTs4C&redir_esc=y

"Love is all you need"

Does that have a " who " and a " what " ?

I can't say that I hate anyone.

This is not a complete sentence, you did not mention " the vehicle ".

Hating in plurals is overkill.

.

Oh, well that's that then!

You don't half type a lot of regurgitated sentences to say very little roc!

Nice to see you back Tosh.

Oh my goodness!
This has all got very technical and maybe a tad too hostile?

[quote]Dawkins, speaking of life on earth, 3:19-3:59, 4:06-4:24, “Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that, ah, at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means,[/quote]

to a very very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded unto perhaps this, this planet. Um, now, that is a possibility, and a, and a, intriguing possibility, and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the, um, at the details, details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature, of some sort of designer”… “And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously, that’s the point.”

I know many accept theistic evolution but none insert their god or gods in the actual evolutionary process, kinda defeats the purpose, you are hardly in charge of the design if you are just another part of the design. THAT'S THE POINT.

.

Texas,

You could convince us all by simply posting a link to any grammar site that is an expert in the communication discipline, but you won't because it does not exist.

A noun does not have to be a " who ", not in the English language, I have looked.

what
/(h)wət/
Pronoun
Asking for information specifying something: "what is your name?".
Adjective
Asking for information specifying something: "what time is it?".
Adverb
To what extent: "what does it matter?".


who
/ho͞o/
Pronoun

What or which person or people: "who is that woman?".
Used to introduce a clause giving further information about a person or people previously mentioned: "the mouse who married the playboy".

Synonyms
which - whom - that - what


Both who and what can be pronouns, you are wrong again.

The pronoun who, in English, is an interrogative and relative pronoun, used chiefly to refer to humans.

A noun names a person, place, or thing; a pronoun substitutes for a noun that names a person, place, or thing. A person always is or was animate, such as Barack Hussein Obama Jr. (is animate) or Franklin Delano Roosevelt (was animate). A place is always inanimate. A thing can be animate (your current dog) or once animate (your dog that died) or inanimate (your dining room table), tangible (all of the preceding examples) or intangible (the law of gravity).

Accordingly, there are innumerable non-animate “who’s”, including the computer into which you type messages on this forum, the air which you breathe as you do so, the earth upon which gravity keeps you firmly placed, all tangible, and the law of gravity previously mentioned that predicts and measures the force that pushes you and earth towards each other, intangible.

Every noun of which I’ve spoken, and the personal and impersonal pronouns which can stand for these nouns, can be a subject noun or subject pronoun, and thus can be a “who.”

This is the biggest load of crock I have ever read in my life, reams of guff that fails to explain how a " thing " can be a " who ", its just more fraudulent gobbledegook and pretentious flatulence.[b]

.

Wait on it.

" It " being the subject of an incomplete sentence requiring a "who " or a " what " to make it complete.

.

The human practise of addressing God in the abstract, e.g. Send World Peace, Give us this day our daily bread, etcetera, admits neutrality of words like "WHO".

ALTOGETHER NOW! .... O God, from whom all blessings flow ....

The human practise of addressing God in the abstract, e.g. Send World Peace, Give us this day our daily bread, etcetera, admits neutrality of words like "WHO".

So atheists are exempt, that will do me, now lets get back to Genesis1.1.

“Car” is a noun; thus, if “car” is the subject noun, “car” is a “who.”

The only people who call cars "who" are people who actually name their cars.

Usually Southerners.

(1) aliens (implied by Dawkins) corresponding to Norse mythological gods,

How, exactly, do Norse gods correspond to aliens? I think it's time to take the (Marvel) Thor movie out of the DVD player. Just because the Norse gods traveled between nine different worlds doesn't mean Dawkins had Odin in mind when he gave his answer to Ben Stein.

(2) the universe corresponding to the Norse mythological tree,

When Dawkins said "universe" he actually meant - the universe, you know, with stars, planets, nebulae, etc. Dawkins neither mentioned or implied the existence of Yggdrasil or any other tree.

(3) a civilization elsewhere in the universe corresponding to Asgard,

How on earth did you jump from the general (an alien civilization on another planet) to the specific (Asgard) without any accompanying evidence to prove that Dawkins was referring to Asgard when he said "alien civilization"? Does this mean that ANYONE talking about aliens must absolutely be referring only to Asgard? Is the SETI institute hunting for Valkyries talking to each other? That's what happens when you make such a leap in logic, Rock. Dawkins said nothing about Asgard.

(4) this planet corresponding to Midgard,

Did Dawkins say "Midgard?" How do you know Dawkins didn't mean "Terra" or "Jorden" or "Toka?" Or maybe he just meant plain old "Earth." Yeah, that's probably what he meant since he has never referred to earth by any other name.

(5) human life on earth, designed by aliens from elsewhere in the universe, carrying aliens’ signature in the details of human chemistry molecular biology, corresponding to human life on Midgard, designed by gods from Asgard, carrying Norse mythological gods’ signature in the similarities of humans’ physiological makeup to Norse mythological gods’ physiological makeup,

This is the part where you take a collection of logical fallacies and throw them together to form a completely fallacious theory. Now you have Dawkins claiming that gods from Asgard came to Midgard to seed human life. Of course, Dawkins mentions things like chemistry and molecular biology. Yeah, I'm almost certain that the Vikings were studying Asgardian molecular biology in between raids on the English countryside and then attributed it, science and all, to their magical gods. Where did Dawkins talk about any of this?

Dawkins' premise is quite clear - he believes it to be an intriguing theory that a highly technological (not magical) alien civilization (generic, no specifics, no "Asgard") seeded life on this planet (earth, not "Midgard) using the science of human chemistry and molecular biology. You've turned it into a Norse panoply of nonsense.

(6) implied aliens themselves coming into existence via some explicable process corresponding to Norse mythological gods coming into existence by an explained process.

When Dawkins said that these aliens came into being by some explicable process, he was NOT talking about there merely BEING an explanation. By "explicable" he was referring to a natural, biological, and evolutionary explanation. When he said that these aliens didn't spontaneously come into being, he was saying they weren't simply "poofed" magically into existence by a god. Therefore, mythology claiming that Freyja came from the tears of Odin (or whatever) is NOT an "explicable" cause and not even close to what Dawkins was talking about. I'm not even certain if Norse mythology explains where its gods came from, but I do know that many mythological gods DID have an explanation for their existence, and they were almost always supernatural. In essence, then, aliens who evolved naturally through Darwinian means do not, in fact, correspond to Norse gods.

Now someone will no doubt explain Parthenogenesis for us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/health/psychology/31love.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

For Rock. Evidence of love.

The definition of who is a reference to a person or people. (pronoun)

An example of who is someone asking the identity of a person; who is that child?
WHO stands for the World Health Organization. (abbreviation)

An example of WHO is the organization that is concerned with international public health matters.

Who is always in reference to a person. It is never in reference to inanimate objects. No one refers to a tree as 'who'. A tree is a 'what'.

Find any definition from any dictionary that says otherwise. A noun or a pronoun and a verb are necessary for a sentence.

Jesus wept.

Jesus is a 'who' not a 'what'.

The car rolled.

The car is a 'what' not a 'who'.

No one would ever say: My car, who is parked in the driveway.....

But you could say: Jesus, who is in my car, wept.

This is fascinating stuff, lets look at this from Texas view, who is the subject noun and what is the verb, in other words who does what. Now "what does what " does not make sense, since whats dont do anything, they are inanimate.

It is easier to use who universally rather than have two whats.

I now consider Genesis 1;1 as evidence that YNWH exists.

.

Is there a law in Texas against using " what " as a subject noun/pronoun ?

But you nevertheless insist upon sharing that nothing with the World. Curious.

Why should you be the only one to share nothing with the World?

The car rolled.”


Who (subject noun/pronoun): “The car”;

What (verb): “rolled”.

What (subject noun): "The car"

Action (verb): "rolled"

When you are looking at a box with oranges in it, you don't say "Who is that?" You say, "What is that?"

“What” denotes action or state of being; thus, “what” must be a verb.

Please provide the dictionary definition of 'what'. No where can I find that 'what' indicates a verb. It is everything but a verb.

.