Word games

[Zzyzx]

.
Rather than debate issues many Theists play word games by using esoteric definitions and by stretching definitions. In current threads attempts are made to say that golf is a religion and that Atheists are Theists . Others stretch the definition of “faith� to apply equally to religious faith and to “faith� that trash will be picked up on schedule (saying “everyone has faith�) – a form of equivocation (the use of equivocal or ambiguous expressions, especially in order to mislead or hedge)

Quite regularly there are discussions of what biblical words “really mean� (as though Bible translators and editors are incompetent and the local expert knows better).

I observe that when one defends a strong position with evidence to support their statements there is no need for word games. However, those defending weak, unsupported positions often use “creative� tactics to give the impression of having a valid argument.

Are word games and similar tactics necessary to defend supernatural beliefs?

[parsivalshorse]

[Replying to post 12 by Zzyzx]

What authority do you believe has the power to dictate a 'standard' definition for any word in the English language?
And how do they enforce that authority?

Perhaps as you say, it shouldn't be necessary to define all words in a conversation. But the fact remains that many words have several different meanings and it IS sometimes necessary to define terms. Because there is no 'standard' to refer to. And no authority that can dictate one.

parsivalshorse,

After reading many of your posts, I find myself far more in agreement with your overall message and points, then disagreeing.

However, as you say context is important, so I find it baffling that you would consider it reasonable (in a conversation about religion and gods) to offer up golf as a means of making a point.

I gave the context and usage as an example. I made that very clear.

If context is very important as you say, and the context does NOT justify a sport analogy or equation, than how can it possibly be considered reasonable or even genuine?

Because it was simple an example, given in context and with an explanation.

I recognize that words may have fluid meanings in context, but when someone purposefully clouds a conversation (for example, saying golf is the same as religion in a discussion about gods and religious practices) how is that not EXACTLY the point of the OP?

I seriously doubt that the intent of the OP is to fault honest misunderstandings (Z can correct me if I'm wrong). But in reasoned discourse, when one purposefully ignores context, well that is not being reasonable, nor is it acting in good faith (pun fully intended).

-all the best

Your criticisms are entirely unfounded and unwarranted, I was simply and clearly making a point about how the word 'religion' can be applied in different contexts. That it has different meanings in different contexts was sugnificant to the OP.

[parsivalshorse]

.

Now which of 1. OR 2. is the standard? And under what authority? Lastly how do you imagine that authority is enforced internationally?

When one is intent on word play rather than reasoned debate ANY definition can be used -- including something made up for the occasion or for the sake of argument.

Notice that the name of the Forum and most of the sub-forums indicate religion in the sense of #1. Debates are NOT intended to be about consumerism, golf, or stock car racing. Those whose "religion" is one of those are encouraged to use websites that cater to their interests.

Perhaps it is difficult for some people to make such distinctions -- but engage in word play rather than debating substantive issues.

I'm amazed at the over-reaction to a simply point I made giving an example of a different usage. Several of you seem to feel entitled to go to great lengths to criticise me personally for making a simple point of language, in context and on topic. Why not address the OP instead of offering more unsolicitied personal critiques?

I have recieved a great many such personal critiques, but am threatened with being banned if I ever dare respond. Why not, as I say address the topic instead?

In fact the majority of responses I am receiving take the form of personal critiques such as yours.

[oldbadger]

Golf is a religion to some. It fits one of the common usages of 'religion'.

I wasn't sure about this proposal, so I went looking.......
.....and you are right.

Any pursuit which a person lives, sleeps, eats, drinks and loves is a religion.
From yachting to mountain climbing, from golf to stamp-collecting, from Chess to Bridge, if a person 'lives' the pursuit and exists for it, then it is a religion.

But, having shown this to all, I'll probably get accused of 'word-games'!

religion
noun: religion
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

synonyms: faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More
sect, cult, religious group, faith community, church, denomination, body, following, persuasion, affiliation

a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions

a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
"consumerism is the new religion"

[oldbadger]

In my experience, in a debate or discussion, I have found that word games are necessary and inevitable whenever a person finds their position untenable.

-all the best

Hi.....
In my experience in a debate or discussion, I have found that people accuse others of using word games when their own position has become untenable.

.....or would you say that I'm using word games just now?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 23 by oldbadger]

If religionists wish to equate Christianity with golf I have no objection. However, by that reasoning a Christian who "lives, sleeps, eats, drinks and loves" golf is a polytheist -- two gods -- Bible God and Golf. Likewise, alcoholic Christians are polytheistic.

Is this an example of "deterioration of language" mentioned in the "Can Atheists be Theists?" thread?

[oldbadger]

Quite regularly there are discussions of what biblical words “really mean� (as though Bible translators and editors are incompetent and the local expert knows better).

.............as though Bible translators and editors are incompetent.................

You could not possibly have grasped the points of debaters who wanted to discuss single words or whole passages in the bible.

Translators and Editors are not being questioned in those discussions!
Here.... let me try to show you:-
Galilean Aramaic is strange, when compared to our language.
I can't even copy Aramaic and paste it into this post, it's that different.
Aramaic words have multiple meanings, just like English words can, but with Galilean mindset, rather than English.

Take the word 'To Swim' and enter it into an English-Aramaic dictionary or translator.
Now paste the translation, reverse the dictionary to Aramaic-English and paste it in again. One of the translations can show the word 'Feather'.
This might seem very strange to many folks, but I understand the use of the word feather very well because I have been a boatman all my life, and feathering oars when sculling or hands when swimming is a use of the word that I am accustomed to.
Keep sending translations for 'Swim' back and forth and you will also get words like 'Go' appearing.

So this is NOTHING to do with translators and editors today, it is about some evangelist in the distant past who heard the oral-tradition tale of Jesus feathering, or swimming, or going... out to his mates as they rowed their boat upwind........ and he fastened onto the word 'go' past-tense 'went'...... which is a stones' throw from 'walked', because there are several Aramaic words for 'Go' which translate 'walk'.

Students of historic-Jesus are very interested in such possibilities to consider, but if you think that this is an example of your idea of 'calling Greek-Latin-English translators incompetent' then you could not be more wrong.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 22 by parsivalshorse]

Moderator Clarification

Personal critiques as in critique of a person's post is fine, and is the very purpose of this forum. Personal critiques as in critique of a person's character is not fine. It's the difference between "you are incorrect" and "you are a liar."

If you feel you are being subjected critiques of the latter kind then report the post. Moderators will deal with it. If you are not happy with the moderation, you can appeal directly to the admin otseng in private message (PM.)


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[parsivalshorse]

[Replying to post 23 by oldbadger]

My sincere thanks. I really appreciate the post.
To prevent this from being yet another rule violation, I will this ensure it is more than one line.

Ok?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Consistency is the key. If a theist says faith covers everything from God to your chair not falling apart, then be prepared to have ideas about God challenged as one could check for a stable chair.

[Bust Nak]

My sincere thanks. I really appreciate the post.

Moderator Comment

Consider using the like button or "token donation" as opposed to short posts. We have a rule against one-liners.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.