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?

[1213]

If two or more sincere Bible-believing literate Christians see the "original meaning" as completely different, which "got the point that the writer was saying in the whole context"? The one that agrees with you. Right?

The one should be correct that has better supporting arguments and can be shown to be more accurately in line with the context and has less interpretation and more literal accuracy. It may be possible that I am not the most literal and honest and contextual. Therefore I recommend all to look by themselves and try to understand what the author wanted to say, not what would be nice looking doctrine for us to exploit.

Do such differences of opinion help explain why there are tens of thousands of different denominations within Christianity -- each declaring they are right?

I have not actually seen that kind of difference. All differences that I have seen, seem to be based on that some people like to keep their old doctrines rather than be faithful to words that Jesus said. Different denominations seem to be rather about whom gets more power than about what the Bible actually says.

[AdHoc]

.
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?

I don't believe word games are necessary to defend supernatural beliefs but sometimes it's helpful to describe things by way of analogy but I don't think that's what you're talking about.

You will agree, I assume, that no matter how poorly a person argues a particular position it has no bearing on the actual truth of the matter at issue?

What do you mean when you say "esoteric definitions and by stretching definitions"?

[OnceConvinced]

I don't think that you have studied any of this, and that you are just throwing brick-bats around and then running away when presented with studied and considered proposals.

Oh my goodness...... Mrs Badger is more clever than me.
I was just chatting about all this at morning-tea and she said 'Some atheists can't talk about that particular subject......... can't approach it from any angle, so can't answer'
OB: Uh?
Mrs B: Well, some atheists argue that there never even was Jesus, and that all of it.... everything.... is just myth.
OB: Yeah..... the mythers. (pronounced 'miffers' )
Mrs B: So how can a myther agree that Jesus did something, which then got magnified by hyperbole or language shifting? A myther would declare that none of it ever happened at all, in an way......... drink your tea husband!
OB: ......... stupefied silence.


Ergo, if anybody here is myther, then they can't even agree that Jesus might possibly have snored in his sleep.
](*,)

What you have there with the non-believer is the ability to take a scenario and run with it. It's a matter of being able to look at things from another perspective. This may be difficult for some people like your wife to grasp, but it's actually not that difficult. In fact it's very easy to take say a fictional situation and debate on it. For instance one can debate which Star Trek captain is the best without having to actually believe that Kirk, Picard, Sisko and Janeway ever actually existed. Or that there are beings called Vulcans, Romulins and the Borg in this world. We could hold discussions on the Dominion and the Feringi Rules of Acquisition without believing it's real. Many have even learnt the Klingon language, yet don't believe there are actually any Klingons who speak it.

We could even get into debates on which super hero is the most mighty, or which villain is the most evil.

The same applies with religious topics. If we had to stop and ask for proof of Jesus's existence or proof of the things he's done, then we would get nowhere in debate. Many of us just skip over that and go to the presumption that Jesus did exist, even though we don't believe it. Then we can debate as if it were real. You will see atheists such as myself do that on many of the threads here.

It doesn't mean that deep down we believe in God or Jesus or the things that the bible says. We are just looking at it from the perspective that it is real.

Perhaps you could explain this to your wife and advise her not to be so presumptuous in future?

[OnceConvinced]

Please.... I'm sorry about that.
I won't suggest to anybody again that they might not understand something.
I will behave.....

Moderator Comment

This comes off as a little sarcastic. I hope that was not your intention. Either way, please do not respond to moderator comments on the threads. If you have any issues with moderator comments, then please PM the moderator.


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.

[Zzyzx]

.

I don't believe word games are necessary to defend supernatural beliefs but sometimes it's helpful to describe things by way of analogy

A well chosen analogy may HELP explain, but should not (in my experience) be used as the whole explanation.

but I don't think that's what you're talking about.

Right. I use “word games� to identify such as, for example, if book says down and someone attempts to argue that the “intended meaning� is sideways.

You will agree, I assume, that no matter how poorly a person argues a particular position it has no bearing on the actual truth of the matter at issue?

Agree 100%.

What do you mean when you say "esoteric definitions and by stretching definitions"?

I use esoteric to mean: “understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest�. Another term that might be used is “Jargon – The language, especially the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group�

Since these are open, public debates, using religion-specific (esoteric) definitions, jargon,or personal, made up definitions is inconsiderate of others who are not part of the religious group – and often appears to be used to obfuscate rather than clarify.

I refer as “stretching definitions� those instances when Apologists attempt to say “Everyone has faith� (as though comparable to religious faith) when one trusts that their car will start, or that every oncoming driver will not swerve into them, etc. When I have used “trust� some argue “it is really faith�.

[JoeyKnothead]

My position on word games is that the least amongst us have pretty good ideas on it when the most amongst us set to it.

The word "faith" has been, since time before our great-grammaws, God love 'em, been about the faith of the religious. It ain't not once fretted whether the pretty thing'll put out a spread for dinner, but that by the glory of a God that can't be shown to exists, dang if she didn't. And that's my faith. Her cooking. Never failed. Now, I said it never failed, but I failed y'all when it was, I said it never did. She can't cook creasy greens to the satisfaction of the starvin'. She just can't. But I have my faith in that I don't need me no creasy greens every day. And so I have all the faith and constitution that that pretty thing right there can fix her up a mess of dinner, that'd put me to sleep.

"Faith", in these forums, is 'faith' that snakes can talk you into whatever it was, that snake could talk you out of. Faith, in these forums, is that some dude could walk upon the waters. Faith, in these forums, is that you can get you healed of you a sickness, just cause someone said ya could.

"Faith", in these forums, is folks declaring all kinda condemdamnation on humans, only the can't show they're within an nth of the truth. Their condemnations are always shown to be an object of their prejudices, their hatreds.

No God could be loving, and commit to "eternal flame you danged ol' eternal flame you needin' to be you one of it'.

Love doesn't stop with those we hate. In fact, love starts when we try to understand those we hate,

"Well ya big ol pederfile, and your pederfile ways, ya dang big ol pederfile, dangit, you're still you a human, and as gol-danged goofy it is the stuff you like, I can't dare be too proud to declare you need you a hangin' any more'n I need me a hanging for hatin' ya, you goofy dang human you!"


Faith is the ultimate conclusion, the if we all apply



Word games are a confusing conundrum, in that I have me my way of 'em, and y'all y'all's. I condundradate, and so do some of y'all.

But, where the definition of the word "word" gets set to fret, well there we go.

We hear it often - "The Word" - as if some dude who can't be shown to have ever had him an utterance had him words he was so proud to do it with. No WORD[/i] was ever uttered by something, that he couldn't do it.

That's the problem with religion. It gets to define words in such a way, we can't no longer tell if it is it's a word, or if it is, it's a notion.

My position is that if we have to chase definitions 'round the parlor table, to the point of gettin' winded, ain't it a far more pleasurable pursuit to chase the pretty girls. My experience is, the pretty girls stop runnin' after a lap or two.


Conclusions?
If I hafta chase over more'n me a county or two to understand a word I already did, well I ain't a-buyin' what it is you're a-sellin'.

But let me look at that pretty thing's picture one more time.

[oldbadger]

This may be difficult for some people like your wife to grasp, but it's actually not that difficult.

Oh she grasps points very well.
She just laughed and replied that folks debating possibilities when they don't even accept possibilities is a waste of life!
But you might not see that?

In fact it's very easy to take say a fictional situation and debate on it. For instance one can debate which Star Trek captain is the best without having to actually believe that Kirk, Picard, Sisko and Janeway ever actually existed.

Yes, TV fans could, for fun, discuss which fictional character was the best, but they already all agree that it's just all about fictional characters..... now that is so different to, say, a myther trying to debate with a student of historic Jesus about how Jesus might have cured a demon possessed person, just for instance.
...................... no point!

We could even get into debates on which super hero is the most mighty, or which villain is the most evil.

You're repeating yourself, really.....

The same applies with religious topics.

Different! One debater is talking fact, one is talking fiction!
Tha would be like two tv fans discussing a fictional character where one has always believed that the show was about reality, the other seeing it as fiction.
My wife is very smart!

If we had to stop and ask for proof of Jesus's existence or proof of the things he's done, then we would get nowhere in debate. Many of us just skip over that and go to the presumption that Jesus did exist, even though we don't believe it. Then we can debate as if it were real. You will see atheists such as myself do that on many of the threads here.

How deluded!

It doesn't mean that deep down we believe in God or Jesus or the things that the bible says. We are just looking at it from the perspective that it is real.

That's funny..... trying to swat a fly that you don't even think is in the room.
Some folks would suggest that mythers go get a life..... not you, of course, just mythers.

Perhaps you could explain this to your wife and advise her not to be so presumptuous in future?

Oh she ain't presumptuous, just vary smart.

[Zzyzx]

.

My wife is very smart!

Oh she ain't presumptuous, just vary smart.

She just laughed and replied that folks debating possibilities when they don't even accept possibilities is a waste of life!

A truly smart and astute observer might realize that the motivation for some of us to debate against imaginary concepts is to expose READERS to the idea that they have been hoodwinked – and let them decide if reasoning and evidence support mythology, emotion and imagination or if they support the real world.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.� Edmund Burke

Organized, commercial religion has great potential for evil by controlling the minds of people and convincing them to do weird and sometimes destructive things “in the name of gods�. Religion is often manipulated by “authorities� and is the puppet of politicians and dictators.

Some argue that religion is a force for good -- and may have a minor point. However, the good must be balanced against the massive amount of evil as presently demonstrated in the Middle East and in Europe and the Americas until the last century or two (and continues in some ways and some places).

[Bust Nak]

Oh she grasps points very well.
She just laughed and replied that folks debating possibilities when they don't even accept possibilities is a waste of life!

It's not wasted if one is having fun.

Yes, TV fans could, for fun, discuss which fictional character was the best, but they already all agree that it's just all about fictional characters.....

Why would it be any less fun if one of the participant believe star trek is not fictional?

Different! One debater is talking fact, one is talking fiction!
Tha would be like two tv fans discussing a fictional character where one has always believed that the show was about reality, the other seeing it as fiction.

Okay, it is different, but why is this difference relevant or important? Why would debating a tv fan who don't see star trek as fictional be any more of a waste of time than a regular "best captain" debate?

Oh she ain't presumptuous, just vary smart.

I don't doubt it, perhaps you can convince her to sign up and defend her point?

[KenRU]

[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.

So you agree, that when discussing religion and gods that using the word religion to include golf would NOT be using the word in context and would, in fact hinder (intentionally or otherwise) communication?