Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Emmisal

The God Debate - Is it really about evidence?

1,043 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr Walker

You know, I wonder if we should have more respect for the 'words'. Believer and Non-Believer, both words could mean so much. It's not just a believer is a Christian, ( despite that I would see so many assume so quickly that's the case. ) and a non-believer would just be a non-Christian, ( again, so many assume just as much ). Of course, not true, I'm a believer, but do let others know, I grew up Secular. Atheist house hold? One would think, there really was no practices in religion. We must be Atheists.

No, but so many assume so much..................... to the point that they act. .............................. Which they shouldn't.

And we as a society act so quickly on the 'I don't know' response, that it's looked upon as 'ignorant'. Well, I'm feeling that way, based on the experience how I perceive it being said, and how some treat me, when I said it. I have come to learn, 'I don't know' could mean also, being honest, but ready to learn. But that depends on the individual.

Exactly. It's not a matter of choice, it's what you see at the moment, that is the evidence to have you believe or no believe.

You see here, is a classic case of me totally not getting how anyone can see something this way

Some one asks if you believe you have a million dollars

This has nothing to go with knowing, or evidences, other wise you would reply if you were being accurate, logical and pedantic/precise, "I don't believe, i know i do/dont have a million dollars.

No they have asked you what you BELIEVE about your financial situation . YOu have three choices First simply "Yes i believe i do have a ,million dollars" (you can say this even if you have no evidence for your belief at all, and are just a total optimist )

Second, you can say "No I don't believe I have a million dollars" In a way this is a pessimistic view. Your knowledge might say you dont have a million dollars but there is a chance that, right at that moment you actually do. And that is my situation for another hour until i check the lottery results.

Lastly you can say "Well i refuse to construct either belief/disbelief position. I don't want to think about it and get my hopes up, or get depressed"; or simply, " i deal with facts and knowledge and I don't have enough evidence right now to be 100 % sure so i wlll say I will not create either position of belief/disbelief " and that is my state of mind right a t the moment.

So ALL constructed positions are a choice and ALL are viable/ logical when you do not have enough evidence to know. To me, agnosticism is the more honest position. I tend to not believe or disbelieve anything but suspend my judgement until i have enough knowledge/evidence to be able to say i know

But ALL are conscious choices, and all require a lack of convincing evidence to be logically or honestly held.

You cannot accurately believe, disbelieve, or be agnostic when you posses enough evidence to know something.

That is like someone asking me if i believe i am male. My answer is no. I cannot form any belief position, given I KNOW I am male. It is a logical and physical impossibility to believe/disbelieve something you know, UNLESS you have a form of mental dysfunction which allows your mind to put aside factual knowledge in order to create a belief position. Again, the "you" here doesn't refer to you, but to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

I think you have me confused with someone else. The last thing I posted on this thread was on page 5, and it contained nothing about choices.

. Choosing to not choose is still making a choice.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice

post 123 today (Well that was obvious given i was responding to it.)

Whoops i see what you mean. You were making a comment on one of my posts and i thought it was a continuation of an earlier discussion. I will have to go back and check to whom i was responding.. .................................. it was Riyeh I have him on ignore so i don't actually see his posts, except when they are quoted in other posters' posts I do tend to think of you two as very similar. My apologies. But take my comments as a response to the post you did write for me.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

You see here, is a classic case of me totally not getting how anyone can see something this way

Some one asks if you believe you have a million dollars

This has nothing to go with knowing, or evidences, other wise you would reply if you were being accurate, logical and pedantic/precise, "I don't believe, i know i do/dont have a million dollars.

No they have asked you what you BELIEVE about your financial situation . YOu have three choices First simply "Yes i believe i do have a ,million dollars" (you can say this even if you have no evidence for your belief at all, and are just a total optimist )

Second, you can say "No I don't believe I have a million dollars" In a way this is a pessimistic view. Your knowledge might say you dont have a million dollars but there is a chance that, right at that moment you actually do. And that is my situation for another hour until i check the lottery results.

Lastly you can say "Well i refuse to construct either belief/disbelief position. I don't want to think about it and get my hopes up, or get depressed"; or simply, " i deal with facts and knowledge and I don't have enough evidence right now to be 100 % sure so i wlll say I will not create either position of belief/disbelief " and that is my state of mind right a t the moment.

This is why you had so much trouble with my question. By not forming a belief, you literally do not believe. You do not have the belief you have million dollars because you've refused to believe.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

This is why you had so much trouble with my question. By not forming a belief, you literally do not believe. You do not have the belief you have million dollars because you've refused to believe.

But "not believing" is NOT "disbelieving", either, and you cant see that. Belief and disbelief are both separate constructs which require ACTIVE attachment to them. I have no attachment to either. i don't believe but i don't disbelieve either. Disbelief is not the ONLY other position available to one who chooses not to believe. And no matter how much you try to tell me this, that is only from your inability to understand the nature of agnosticism i have an attachment to choosing to wait and see and wait untii i can know, ANY position.

Can you see this or not? I do not believe but that does not mean i do disbelieve as an automatic default or only other option, because disbelief is not the OPPOSITE of belief but a separately arrived at construct. One can chose belief Disbelief or neither and if one chooses neither, then logically that is NOT disbelieving because you already actively rejected a position of disbelief.

That is a very old and well known philosophical/logical position. It is the basis for agnosticism which is the refusal to either believe or disbelieve in gods Ie refusal to construct a position of belief OR a position of disbelief An agnostic does not disbelieve in gods because that would make then an atheist, but they don't believe in gods either, or then they would be a theist.

If we follow the way you are thinking, you are trying to deny that agnosticism is a tenable position, because a human being must either believe or not believe

However it is accepted as a logical and rational position, and it is clearly defined, and thus your understanding is incorrect.

I can see the path of logic which leads you to your conclusion but you need to see that belief and disbelief are independent and active mental constructs not opposites/default positions of one construct.

Weird as it may seem, not choosing to believe does not mean you are choosing to disbelieve as a default, or even that failing to chose belief, is a form of disbelief. Disbelief is NOT the passive, automatic/ default consequence of failing to believe. Like belief, disbelief is an active conscious construct . if you do not actively chose to disbelieve, then you are not disbelieving, just because you aren't believing. Believe me. :rofl:

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

This is why you had so much trouble with my question. By not forming a belief, you literally do not believe. You do not have the belief you have million dollars because you've refused to believe.

Ah but no, I am not disbelieving i have the money either. That construct is not in my mind, thus your conclusion MUST be false. I do not, NOT believe. I do NOT disbelieve. .which requires active consent to construct. . It is like Schroedinger's cat. I accept as equal (or at least potential) probabilities that i might or might not have a million dollars, but i wont know until i check the evidence.

The bad news was that when I opened the box, the cat was dead and I hadn't won even a dollar, but until I checked, I neither believed nor disbelieved. I could have been a millionaire or I might not have been. . The good news is that NO ONE won, and the prize pool is now up to 80 million. I have bought a ticket, and next week will again chose to suspend both belief and disbelief about my wealth, until i can know. The chance of winning is something like 400 million to one, but if you have a ticket you do have a chance, and thus either winning or losing is possible, and once the draw is made, i might be either rich or not. To an agnostic, god might exist, or might not, even if the probability is worse than 400 million to one but the agnostic wont commit to either belief or probability. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

Ah but no, I am not disbelieving i have the money either.

Good because the question did not ask if you disbelieve, only if you believe. Disbelieving would imply you also don't believe, however that is not a requirement of not believing.
To an agnostic, god might exist, or might not, even if the probability is worse than 400 million to one but the agnostic wont commit to either belief or probability. .

Even the majority of atheists understand god(s) may or may not exist. They however do not worship any. Edited by Rlyeh
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Good because the question did not ask if you disbelieve, only if you believe. Disbelieving would imply you also don't believe, however that is not a requirement of not believing.

Even the majority of atheists understand god(s) may or may not exist. They however do not worship any.

Right then i think we are on the same page with your first statement. To me it appeared that you originally seemed to be saying that , If I said I did not believe, then i must disbelieve .

But no to your second statement Atheism is the active disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. An agnostic would have an open mind on the existence of gods and that they might be discovered or proven to exist. However an atheist, by definition, has an active belief that no gods exist, and thus can never be discovered or encountered. Atheism is not about the worship of, but the very existence of, gods. An atheist would say the existence of gods is impossible, that they have never existed, do not exist now, and never will be shown to exist; all based on belief that this is so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

. Choosing to not choose is still making a choice.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice

post 123 today (Well that was obvious given i was responding to it.)

Whoops i see what you mean. You were making a comment on one of my posts and i thought it was a continuation of an earlier discussion. I will have to go back and check to whom i was responding.. .................................. it was Riyeh I have him on ignore so i don't actually see his posts, except when they are quoted in other posters' posts I do tend to think of you two as very similar. My apologies. But take my comments as a response to the post you did write for me.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

But no to your second statement Atheism is the active disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. An agnostic would have an open mind on the existence of gods and that they might be discovered or proven to exist. However an atheist, by definition, has an active belief that no gods exist, and thus can never be discovered or encountered. Atheism is not about the worship of, but the very existence of, gods. An atheist would say the existence of gods is impossible, that they have never existed, do not exist now, and never will be shown to exist; all based on belief that this is so.

The majority of Atheists don't say this at all. An atheist is literally someone who has no god(s).
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Riyeh

The majority of Atheists don't say this at all. An atheist is literally someone who has no god(s).

In contrast, an agnostic has no estimate for how many gods she has.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

Riyeh

In contrast, an agnostic has no estimate for how many gods she has.

LOL!

k1jcp.jpg

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

This is why you had so much trouble with my question. By not forming a belief, you literally do not believe. You do not have the belief you have million dollars because you've refused to believe.

Great way of putting it. Frankly, I thought my reply to you was extremely simple and understandable, ( when I agreed with you ) that I cannot even fathom why so much went into explaining why it doesn't make sense that belief comes from personal evidence, and not a choice whether you have something or not.

In fact, why would one try to 'make up' a reasoning to induce a behavior that really is a instinctual response to the evidence or lack there of.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

The majority of Atheists don't say this at all. An atheist is literally someone who has no god(s).

Define 'has".

The reason an atheist cant "have" gods is because they don't believe in the existence of them The active disbelief in a god comes before the inability to worship a god. and prevents such worship. Atheism IS a conscious construction of disbelief. Ie a conscious choice to disbelieve in the existence of gods. (Now and in the past an in the future) It rejects the very concept of a god as being viable A person who cant go quite that far in the construction of disbelief, but cant form a construction of some sort of belief, tends to be an agnostic .

Some modern atheists try to fudge the question by claiming that atheism is NOT a construct of disbelief but simply a lack of belief in gods but that is a logical impossibility (And i can't quite understand what they are worried by apart from in america the "bad name " that atheists wrongly have.. It is a clear and honest position to declare al disbelief in the existence of gods.. Perhaps some are really agnostic not atheistic)

If you have a lack of belief or disbelief in gods you are agnostic (And again some try to define agnosticism as weak atheism,( However historically, philosophically, and etymologically, atheism IS a deliberate conscious construct that you chose to disbelieve in the existence of ALL gods.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Define 'has".

The reason an atheist cant "have" gods is because they don't believe in the existence of them The active disbelief in a god comes before the inability to worship a god. and prevents such worship. Atheism IS a conscious construction of disbelief. Ie a conscious choice to disbelieve in the existence of gods. (Now and in the past an in the future) It rejects the very concept of a god as being viable A person who cant go quite that far in the construction of disbelief, but cant form a construction of some sort of belief, tends to be an agnostic .

Some modern atheists try to fudge the question by claiming that atheism is NOT a construct of disbelief but simply a lack of belief in gods but that is a logical impossibility (And i can't quite understand what they are worried by apart from in america the "bad name " that atheists wrongly have.. It is a clear and honest position to declare al disbelief in the existence of gods.. Perhaps some are really agnostic not atheistic)

If you have a lack of belief or disbelief in gods you are agnostic (And again some try to define agnosticism as weak atheism,( However historically, philosophically, and etymologically, atheism IS a deliberate conscious construct that you chose to disbelieve in the existence of ALL gods.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

When I say I am atheist, I am saying that I use reason to arrive at my opinions, I am not describing/ defining my opinion of atheism as my argument for or against gods. I am not saying I believe this or I don't believe that. I am saying that my arguments will be in line with the tenents of critical thinking, (and I will be current and up to date academically) and my reasons will be given for my conclusion and I will go for there and where I am uncertain I will say I don't know.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Riyeh

In contrast, an agnostic has no estimate for how many gods she has.

apatheist_decal.jpg?height=250&width=250&padToSquare=true

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

When I say I am atheist, I am saying that I use reason to arrive at my opinions, I am not describing/ defining my opinion of atheism as my argument for or against gods. I am not saying I believe this or I don't believe that. I am saying that my arguments will be in line with the tenents of critical thinking, (and I will be current and up to date academically) and my reasons will be given for my conclusion and I will go for there and where I am uncertain I will say I don't know.

Exactly, and besides.................... and again, I do not understand someone arguing that someone 'choosing' to not believe. Like you said, you have the reasoning, your own personal evidence to not believe.

( it's hilarious that someone will go out of their way, (( trying to look right )) and assume they feel dissecting one little word, to prove a false premise. :no::w00t: ))

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

When I say I am atheist, I am saying that I use reason to arrive at my opinions, I am not describing/ defining my opinion of atheism as my argument for or against gods. I am not saying I believe this or I don't believe that. I am saying that my arguments will be in line with the tenents of critical thinking, (and I will be current and up to date academically) and my reasons will be given for my conclusion and I will go for there and where I am uncertain I will say I don't know.

I am not sure how that is a response to what i wrote but i appreciate your thinking

Reason and logic can arrrive at any answer depending on what premise you begin with In reading up on this while responding to the nature of atheism i noted the philosophical position that only agnosticism ie the statement I do not know and i chose not to believe or disbelieve is logically justifiable, UNLESS one has evidence for the existence of god or evidence for gods non existence.

Belief without evidence is not a logically sustainable argument although one can have other reasons for choosing either position A person can more rationally argue they know gods exist, via personal evidences, while it is almost impossible to argue that one can KNOW gods do not exist via this reasoning.

Critical thinking may lead you to one conclusion, and another person to a totally different position so that doesnt help much

. I understand what you are trying to express in defining yourself but it doesn't change the definition of an atheist Ie a person who disbelieves in the existence of any form of gods. If you actively disbelieve in gods you are an atheist no matter how you constructed that disbelief. If you actively believe in the existence of gods (of any type) yo are a theist no mater how you constructed that belief And an agnostic consciously chooses to suspend the construction of either lifebelt or disbelief.

Your explanation, as posted, defines you as an agnostic. which i think is what you see yourself as. At the moment you see no reason to construct a belief in gods, but logic, experience, and evidences, could change your mind

You do realise you cant escape the clutches of belief construction, just by trying to be logical and critical in your thinking, don't you? Critical thinking is no shield against the construction of belief or disbelief positions on ANY subject.

What does critical thinking tell you, you personally should do, to prevent global warming or end poverty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

( it's hilarious that someone will go out of their way, (( trying to look right )) and assume they feel dissecting one little word, to prove a false premise. :no::w00t: ))

Now who here would do such a thing?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

Some modern atheists try to fudge the question by claiming that atheism is NOT a construct of disbelief but simply a lack of belief in gods but that is a logical impossibility (And i can't quite understand what they are worried by apart from in america the "bad name " that atheists wrongly have.. It is a clear and honest position to declare al disbelief in the existence of gods.. Perhaps some are really agnostic not atheistic)

If you have a lack of belief or disbelief in gods you are agnostic (And again some try to define agnosticism as weak atheism,( However historically, philosophically, and etymologically, atheism IS a deliberate conscious construct that you chose to disbelieve in the existence of ALL gods.

Did you notice you just contradicted yourself? You're saying agnosticism is a logical impossibility.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

I am not sure how that is a response to what i wrote but i appreciate your thinking

Reason and logic can arrrive at any answer depending on what premise you begin with In reading up on this while responding to the nature of atheism i noted the philosophical position that only agnosticism ie the statement I do not know and i chose not to believe or disbelieve is logically justifiable, UNLESS one has evidence for the existence of god or evidence for gods non existence.

Belief without evidence is not a logically sustainable argument although one can have other reasons for choosing either position A person can more rationally argue they know gods exist, via personal evidences, while it is almost impossible to argue that one can KNOW gods do not exist via this reasoning.

Critical thinking may lead you to one conclusion, and another person to a totally different position so that doesnt help much

. I understand what you are trying to express in defining yourself but it doesn't change the definition of an atheist Ie a person who disbelieves in the existence of any form of gods. If you actively disbelieve in gods you are an atheist no matter how you constructed that disbelief. If you actively believe in the existence of gods (of any type) yo are a theist no mater how you constructed that belief And an agnostic consciously chooses to suspend the construction of either lifebelt or disbelief.

Your explanation, as posted, defines you as an agnostic. which i think is what you see yourself as. At the moment you see no reason to construct a belief in gods, but logic, experience, and evidences, could change your mind

You do realise you cant escape the clutches of belief construction, just by trying to be logical and critical in your thinking, don't you? Critical thinking is no shield against the construction of belief or disbelief positions on ANY subject.

What does critical thinking tell you, you personally should do, to prevent global warming or end poverty?

At this point, for our purposes, it is irrelevant to the argument whether one believe's in God or not, because even if one doesn't believe, what one doesn't believe in or does believe in is "infinite perfection," what is of use to us in this context is that we have some knowledge of the concept and that is the key to this argument, in otherwords, it is the idea that is important not whether you believe in it or not.

As an atheist in order to address any question I go through a critical thinking process first, I use the scientific method, I ask myself things like is there anything I can come up with that would falsify a claim, I would ask are the arguments offered for a claim rooted in evidence ( sound)? Is the claim comprehensive in scope, is it honest, does it contain elements of bias and what are they, can the claim be replicated, is the evidence able to be independently verified?

(In a general sense) as an atheist, while I can't say there is no God for certain, I can say based on the lack evidence( real world ) for any gods, I conclude (at this time) it is more reasonable to say they don't exist. In otherwords, I conclude this position is justified based on lack of evidence. It is generally simpler to show that something which does exist does exist (displaying an example will usually do it) than to show that something which doesn't exist doesn't exist (bigfoot stories persist).

On the flip side, if I am to take the religious side I would conclude that is reasonable based on the lack of evidence to say I have faith there is a god(s). I conclude this position is justified based on lack of evidence.

In all honesty, in real world application, I do fit the atheist shoes.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

Now who here would do such a thing?

:hmm:;):w00t:

At this point, for our purposes, it is irrelevant to the argument whether one believe's in God or not, because even if one doesn't believe, what one doesn't believe in or does believe in is "infinite perfection," what is of use to us in this context is that we have some knowledge of the concept and that is the key to this argument, in otherwords, it is the idea that is important not whether you believe in it or not.

As an atheist in order to address any question I go through a critical thinking process first, I use the scientific method, I ask myself things like is there anything I can come up with that would falsify a claim, I would ask are the arguments offered for a claim rooted in evidence ( sound)? Is the claim comprehensive in scope, is it honest, does it contain elements of bias and what are they, can the claim be replicated, is the evidence able to be independently verified?

(In a general sense) as an atheist, while I can't say there is no God for certain, I can say based on the lack evidence( real world ) for any gods, I conclude (at this time) it is more reasonable to say they don't exist. In otherwords, I conclude this position is justified based on lack of evidence. It is generally simpler to show that something which does exist does exist (displaying an example will usually do it) than to show that something which doesn't exist doesn't exist (bigfoot stories persist).

On the flip side, if I am to take the religious side I would conclude that is reasonable based on the lack of evidence to say I have faith there is a god(s). I conclude this position is justified based on lack of evidence.

In all honesty, in real world application, I do fit the atheist shoes.

............................... works for me! :D
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Now who here would do such a thing?

what do you mean by 'thing' ??? :-*

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Furthermore, by using my near superhuman powers, irrefutable logic and reality fact checkers, one can have no disagreement with my statement about ' thing'

and further furthermore ; Some words are place fillers, nothing words. They’re not exact enough to make an impact or to influence tone or emotion, and they simply take up space. Some words don’t pull their own weight and may even diffuse the impact of surrounding words. These filler words work okay in a first or second draft, but they should be replaced on a rewrite or edit. They aren’t bad words, aren’t words you need to refrain from using 100 percent of the time, but you should review them in any work of fiction and quite possibly in any piece of writing. I’ve already covered the word it; read the Ubiquitous, Wandering It for specifics. In this article we’ll look at thing. Thing is common. Generic. Vague. Often meaningless. We use thing again and again in both speech and writing, quite often because settling for thing is easier than coming up with an accurate word, a more pointed word. But too many uses of vague words—or the use of a vague word at the wrong time—can flatten the impact you are trying to create with the rest of your words. Thing used in the wrong place can draw every bit of originality or tension or power out of a sentence or paragraph. It can even drain a scene. Imprecise words can work for conversation, and filler words can work for drafts, but since writers have the luxury of time to choose just the right words in just the right combinations and order, writers should take advantage of that luxury. We already know that word choices can make or break a novel. The right words can turn the common into the unique, and word choices can direct a story for both the characters and the readers. One simple way to choose strong words, the best words for any scene or story, is to remove common or imprecise or filler words and replace them with exact and specific words. Words that fit character, setting, genre, emotion, and the action of the moment all at the same time help create memorable fiction. The right words help writers create standout characters, characters readers will want to remember. Precise words and phrases that truly fit into the mix of fiction elements you’ve chosen are one of the major ingredients for good fiction, for producing unforgettable stories. Thing is one word you can almost always change in a way that will create a stronger impact. A character might say thing, of course. But even coming from a character’s mouth or thoughts, the word may not accomplish nearly as much as a more specific word could. Pinpoint-precise words can stir tension and raise the conflict level. They can influence reader emotions. They can reveal the personality of the character who uses them. Pointed words can propel a story thread in a new direction while filler words such as thing just sit on a page like a lump of cold mashed potatoes, adding nothing. Doing nothing. Rather than rely on the common thing, especially dozens and dozens of times in a manuscript, use words that are appetizing and useful, words that add to the rest of the sentence, paragraph, or scene. How to Avoid Thing You almost always want to use a specific word rather than thing(s) when it’s obvious there are other choices. Use a specific noun when possible and when doing so doesn’t require convoluted sentences. As with any suggestion, there are exceptions. If only a couple of words are logical or legitimate substitutes for a particular noun and you’ve already used them many times or if a character needs to say thing to reveal her emotions (the stupid thing was underfoot again), let thing be one of your options.* We all hoped the new thing [plan, option, setup, adventure] would work out. The only things [gear] she still needed were [was] the tent, a sleeping bag, and dry shoes. The box was filled with things [memories, keepsakes, junk, mementos, trash] from his childhood. The committee’s proposal was a good thing [compromise, option, choice]. That will only make things [my life, my prospects, our circumstances] worse. They searched the woods for the thing [treasure, talisman, answer, creature] for the next five weeks. *They searched the woods for the danged thing for six nights straight. Reword to eliminate a need for thing or a substitute word. She still needed a tent, sleeping bag, and dry shoes. The committee’s proposal was a solid one. Use other less common vague words when no specific word really fits, when a general word is sufficient, when the character can’t think of the right word, or when the character doesn’t want to name the item. Her things [stuff, crap, junk] had been crammed into the trunk in no particular order. Pack your things [****, garbage] and get out. The thing [doohickey, thingamajig, doololly**] didn’t fit. That will make things [the situation] even worse. The thing [object, item, package] you were asking about arrived this morning. If you can’t eliminate the phrase because you need the sound or rhythm of it, use related phrases to avoid the use of thing. The thing is, he just doesn’t understand. The truth is, he just doesn’t understand. One thing was certain: they were lost. One truth was inescapable: they were lost. The inescapable? They were lost. The one certainty? They were lost. After you remove thing and things and rewrite for specifics and impact, search out thing’s relatives and give them the same treatment. Something, everything, nothing, and anything often create the same bland impact that the use of thing does. Change the compound thing words into exact words that remind readers of the subject and/or that add to the tension or to the emotional element. These words may not be as noticeable to readers as the generic thing, so you may not need to worry as much about changing them, but they are imprecise. If you can reword without creating a mess, do it. If you use one or more of them often, definitely change some of them. I’ve got something I need to tell you. I’ve got news for you. I’ve got a report on the incident. Something scary happened today. A guy tried to break into my car today. You got anything for me to do? Any chores for me? Everything she said was a lie. Her every word was a lie. Every “revelation” was a lie. He tried everything, but nothing worked. He tried each option twice, but none worked. Exception If you’re using one of the thing words to lead to a delayed revelation—maybe to create a slow or dramatic buildup—or are using it to show that a character is inexact or is fearful of getting to the point, then don’t think you must change your wording. Create the effect you need with the words that will best create that effect. Yet you don’t want to overuse such devices and you still don’t want to overuse the thing words. Use words that create impact, yes. But use a variety of words that sound different from other words and that look different on the page. Search your manuscript when you’re ready to do some cleaning up and replace nothing words with impact words.

Edited by back to earth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
dreaming-dog-6.gif
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

You know B2E. When you write those paragraphs I can't help but want to squish your head until your brain pops out. :angry::hmm:<_<:w00t:

39126212.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.