9
   

Atheists, smarter than religious people

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2007 06:15 am
JLNobody wrote:
When someone says "irregardless" instead of "regardless" or "irrespective" I assume a limited education (I'm qualified to make this judgement because I have a graduate degree in penmanship).
But when an educated person says "I could care less" when he means "I couldn't care less" I assume he lacks precision of thought or isn't listening to himself. That's almost as bad as lacking education; he's not using his education.


There is also come colloquial and traditional usage creeping into these type of phrases.

Here in New England, people sometimes invert the usage of contractions, like DO and DON'T. They appear to be oblivious to what they are doing, as it's more a form of expression than meaning.

For example, if I live in a blue house, and I meet someone else who also lives in a blue house, the conversation might go like this: "I live in a blue house." "Wow, so don't I".

The second person will say DON'T I, instead of DO I.

I've only heard this in New England, and many people do it, especially those who have grown up here. The other odd thing is that they are not aware of what they are doing. If I ask them to repeat themselves and think about it, they will switch to so DO I. And then if I ask them why they switched, they are unaware of having said DON'T I in the first place.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2007 11:34 am
My God, I hope that usage stays in New England.

I'm certain that Osso is referring to lose as in lost (the bottle cap) and loose as in loosen (the bottle cap).
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 01:04 am
I was rather wordy there, I'll admit, on my last post. But loose refers to how the pants fit, indeed, and lose refers to that piece of mail lost in the post.

I swear, this is messed up more often than not on a2k.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 09:15 am
If only spell check could root out our misuse of homonyms.

I am homonymphobic at times and it would certainly help.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 09:36 am
neo, Does that mean you're a homo with a phobia? LOL
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 10:34 am
This clear anything up?

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe and the biran fguiers it out aynawy. .
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 10:45 am
That is becoming old news. Still, it's facinating old news. Another curious thing is that if; th wrds re jst cnsnnts t s stll rdble, vn thgh t tks slghtl mr ffrt...
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 11:31 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
neo, Does that mean you're a homo with a phobia? LOL
homonymphobic has a lot of possibilities, don't you think?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 11:34 am
Gelisgesti wrote:
This clear anything up?

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe and the biran fguiers it out aynawy. .
Youcanevenrunitalltogetherifyouwant.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 02:05 pm
Gelisgesti, that was an excellent example of the "economy of perception". I was able to read that without pause.
A similar principle may apply to recognition of faces. Sometimes people "subjectively" appear alike who do not "objectively" look alike. They may seem identical (when not juxtaposed, of couse) in some psychologically significant way even though they are very different in many particulars.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 03:43 pm
neologist wrote:
Youcanevenrunitalltogetherifyouwant.


Humans are very good pattern recognizers. Especially visual patterns.

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/2162/unknownmu1.jpg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 04:01 pm
ahum!
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 08:28 pm
That's right to recognize a PATTERN is to see something general, thereby ignoring particularities.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 11:20 pm
I don't know JL ... hard to ignore those particularities.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 11:26 pm
Yeah, but as you know we do it all the time--to save time and avoid sensory overload.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2007 11:36 pm
Those 'x-ray' glasses sold on the back page of comic books, you know the ones with the lightning bolts shooting out of them .... do those really work?
Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2007 12:56 am
Just for fun
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2007 01:08 am
lol. Bump from the past.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2007 01:47 pm
I recall in the sixties a guy who took many "trips" on LSD describing the experience as one of seeing only (or mostly) the particulars of experience--e.g., spots or variations of shading on a wall that would normally not be taken into perceptual account. When he came down, he said, it was a return to selective perception, to patterns and other "meaningful" phenomena.
0 Replies
 
ziek25
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2008 01:50 am
@George,
I would have to agree here (for this somewhat small blurb). For the most part of the 5% Atheists vs. 95% religious ( I really feel it's more like 70/30 but the sheep don't have the balls to step up and say they "might have some real questions about this book, translated by man yet posed as gods law. Either way, there are not enough people standing up and saying "I don't believe in Santa". Does this make us smarter, I believe yes for one simple fact. We were both given the same information (regardless of sec) and only 5% of the population stand behind a rational thought process, and are the largest majority to accomplish scientific or medical break through.

I'll stay a happy, yet informed sheep.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.92 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 11:55:34