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?

[KenRU]

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.

Thank goodness then we have a dictionary to decide who is playing word games, right?

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

Word game? No, but you are playing a game, nonetheless.

[catnip]

.

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 beg to differ! I would say creative tactics are an effort to communicate despite prejudice.

If one has sound arguments based upon verifiable evidence there is no need for tactics, word play, definition stretching, evasions, smoke screens, diversions, etc.

“Prejudice� is what the other guy has – and “we� don't, right?

There is no reasonable response to that very prejudicial question. Nor is it a well reasoned response to what I said. "With prejudice" is a common term and it is merely relating a truth that is present in these discussions. Are you denying prejudice concerning the subject? You know, the whole basis of debate, for and against.

Noting that translations are often weak and word usages change over time is merely to state the fact that translations are often weak and word usages change over time.

It is fortunate that among us are debaters who can say “what the Bible really means� in spite of translation weakness and word usage changes – and prove that their own literature is unworthy of trust as it exists in the hands of believers.

I am afraid that your meaning here is not clear. Are you admitting that your own claims against Christians in the OP are baseless?

Do note that Christians from different denominations treat the scriptures in very different ways. I suppose that all approaches were well intentioned in the beginning, but the Reformation has changed the approach to scripture that was traditionally inspired since the time of the Church Fathers and Pope Clement I. Or rather, what I am saying is the way of reading the scriptures that was handed down since the time of its writing has been undermined. I debate against that myself.

On the other hand, words themselves can be defined, particular usage can be clarified. And due to the fact that specialized dictionaries do exist and words are often applied within any discipline, religion and science and medicine, to relate specific meanings, it is not unreasonable to define words in debate. to clarify meaning.

All of this is to say what, exactly?

Translations between languages are notoriously difficult to overcome. They simply do not necessarily equate on numerous levels. It doesn't matter what language the translator is dealing with, these difficulties arise. Thus, "lost in translation" is often claimed.

Is that why amateurs debating here can provide more accurate translations than professional Bible translators and editors?

Amateurs shouldn't. But even going back to Koine Greek, there will be diversity in interpretation of meaning. This is generally the venue of the Church.

It behooves the question: what value is it to attempt to discuss anything with a person with a closed mind.

I often encounter closed minded people in debate – people who KNOW the TRUTH and whose literature is proof of truth; who consider their beliefs to be beyond question; who can't or won't admit that what they choose to believe could be wrong.

That kind of bias could be your own, actually. It depends on what the subject is. There is a certain ambiguity in scripture as it relates to faith and it can't be read or claimed superficially. On the other hand, here we have a baseless argument about the very tools of debate itself and a denial of the difficulties of relating the subject to the unindoctrinated, willfully unindoctrinated.

In short: It is a denial of facts that word meanings do change or specific meanings are relied on and translation from obsolete and/or foreign languages always pose certain difficulties. It is a known fact that our best and most original manuscripts are not original. In short, this is a null argument to begin with.

I respond to their claims, stories, speculations, testimonials, emotional appeals, threats, promises – NOT to convince them of anything (I do not care what their position or beliefs may be) but rather to present to READERS the contrast between beliefs / emotions vs. reasoning / evidence – and encourage critical / analytical thinking over “Take my word for it (or his or this book)�.

But there is ample evidence through testimony of the mystical/transcendental experience that there is a very real basis for faith—albeit difficult to relate. You deny that. I'm not a committed believer because I “believe in the Bible�. I don't. I believe it is a sacred text that relates the practice of foundation of faith, but faith transcends the Bible. (Yes, I have noticed that you have refused repeatedly to deal with that issue.)

And the only means to attempt to penetrate such a mindset is to appeal to logic--any logic.

One means that may “penetrate such a mindset� is to support one's claims with verifiable evidence. Try it. It might work – but only if there IS such evidence to support one's claims and stories.

That is why there is science and why there is religion. Science is limited to what can be seen and investigated and religion is limited to what is unseen and the powers of the human mind.

To show examples and similarities to things the person does accept of understand.

How does one show examples of anything similar to long dead bodies coming back to life, people performing supernatural feats, snakes and donkeys conversing in human language?

The body is not important, the spirit does not die. And perhaps it isn't that snakes and donkeys ever conversed in human language. The ancients had a strange way of mixing up the mundane and the spiritual.

Though, note, he may resent it.

The people who appear to become most resentful and to become emotional (often resorting to personal attacks rather than debating issues) are those whose unsupported contentions are shown to be unsupported contentions.

No. I would say it is frustration due to saying such things that are impossible to respond to such as, “Prejudice� is what the other guy has – and “we� don't, right?� “Prejudice� is a term used in law, in science, in all disciplines where opinion can dominate. Sometimes it is costly as in the insistence for so long that cholesterol is caused be eating fats. That was based on opinion and held even long after proof that it is not the case was proven time and again.

In short: This is an utter waste of time. There is nothing to discuss.

If one deems a discussion a “waste of time� WHY do they choose to waste time on it? Is there some compulsion to participate in debates that are a “waste of time�?

The subject of the OP itself is not valid. It is as though you want to remove the very tools of debate from the hands of those who believe in the supernatural even though word meanings and difficulties in translation plague other disciplines and subjects, as well.

[OnceConvinced]

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?

Is debating not fun? Is it not entertaining? I wouldn't be here if it wasn't. And I don't actually spend that much time here... and it's while I'm at work any way. Weekends and evenings I have other things to do.

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!

So having fun is not a good point then? We should only debate serious topics? Is that what you are saying?

When it comes to debating religion it is often more than just about fun For many of us it's about trying to enlighten those stuck in religious fantasies. Trying to get people to face reality. We see it as a complete waste of life living in religious fantasies. It's even more important to those of us who have wasted years in religious fantasies ourselves to expose them. We don't want to see people wasting their lives, so we debate. So it's definitely not a waste of time. If we can convince one person not to fall for the con, then we've done something really good with our time.


There are hundreds of people that read these threads that don't actually participate in them. It's definitely no waste of time to try to expose the flaws of religious thinking. But to do that we have to say more than "Prove God exists" or "prove Jesus existed."

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.....

Just making sure you see my point. The fact is it's fun to debate those things. At least with Superman and Batman no one is trying to tell us they are real and that their wrath will be upon them if we don't believe in them. However with religion, those who believe in their superheros and villains take it very seriously and try to push it on everyone else.

Would you want people going around living their lives based on the philosophies of Batman? I'm betting not. If there was some Batman religion taking hold of your city, I bet you'd want to get involved in that to expose it for the nonsense it is, wouldn't you? At least if you cared. You would want to ensure that nobody takes it seriously. But it would take more than saying "Prove the existence of Batman". You would have to dig deeper and use other tactics like debating as if Batman really DID exist. At least if you really wanted to be affective in helping people break free from their fantasies.

The same applies with religious topics.

Different! One debater is talking fact, one is talking fiction!

One debater may believe they are talking fact and another talking fiction. It makes no difference. If one wants to expose it as fiction one needs to do more than just demand proof. One needs to use other tactics to expose faulty thinking and logic.

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!

The point is one can debate as if something is real. It doesn't take actually believing in it to be able to do it. And that's what many of us do on this site.

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!

No, being deluded is when you believe something that is false. This is not about changing our beliefs. It's about being able to look at other perspectives. It's about putting oneself in the shoes of another. Some of us have that ability. We don't have to actually believe the fantasy to debate against it.

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.

It actually works. I have seen it. I have experienced it myself. One of the things that helped break me out of my religious delusions was having Atheists debate with me as if Jesus was real and God was real. It helped me see many of the faulty logic I had been indoctrinated with. If all I had been asked was to prove God's existance, or prove Jesus lived, then their arguments would have been futile. You have to put yourself into the shoes of the Christian to be able to expose their faulty beliefs.

Oh she ain't presumptuous, just vary smart.

Sorry, but it's presumption. I know that for a fact based on my own debate techniques and my reasons for being here.

Here is a thread where some of us discussed why we debate the way we do on this site. Check it out and you will see why it's not a waste of time to us:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=28692

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 50 by oldbadger]

Is it not possible to debate issues without making repeated personal remarks?

The amateurs to which I refer have been identified as those debating HERE who manipulate and play word games correcting the work of (specifically) professionals who translate and edit Bibles in common use.

Still hanging on to that, are you...?

Is it not possible to debate issues without resorting to personal remarks?

I wonder which expert you warm to? Which translation is the correct one?

My position is to trust professional translators over amateur guesses by anonymous Internet posters.

Well, they're mostly all professional.......... but not all.
Some of the best translations were by those who just did the work for love.
I'm sure that you could think of some as well, but If you don't know you could always ask for an example?

Do the “for love� translators possess professional-level expertise – knowledge of the languages involved? Standard practices in the field?

Presumably professional Bible translators are aware of that fact.

You surely are clinging on to all those professional-translators for dear life!

Is it not possible to debate issues without resorting to personal remarks?

It might be interesting to try it some time.

But of course this is just a word-game, because we know that messages passed from person to person can alter before anything is written, and even then bits can get added or removed, and we have EVIDENCE for this, which, I have to say, you might be avoiding........ i?

Avoiding? I regularly and repeatedly point out that Bible stories are subject to errors typical of folklore, legend, oral tradition, myths, fables, etc – to include the likelihood of changes before oral is converted into written.

Is this to suggest that “Atheists� who debate here are less inclined to be interested than are Apologists (who debate here)?

....... I'm just suggesting that humans can be subjective according to any agendas or missions that they might have. I've always been interested in human tendencies, professionally, of course.

I do not disagree that humans “can be� (or are) subjective.

Is there any reason to think that “Atheists� are any more subjective (or less interested) than Apologists?

Exactly. None of us here are likely qualified to claim professional status regarding translation (or theology).

.... Ha ha.... .. love it! Professionals, professionals, professionals..... you only want to listen to or read the professionals...... is that right?

Wrong. I hold professional Bible translators responsible for making the best possible translation from other languages into English.

AND I disagree with the practice of many Apologists (amateurs) “correcting� the words selected for inclusion in standard-use Bibles by professional translators and editors.

But you've got a problem there, I think. It's not that many unpaid translators have done amazing translation jobs, but that the professionals, all those experts, have come up with differing results!

That certainly is not a problem for me – but may be for those who revere the Bible.

However, I agree that there seems to be a great deal of disagreement about what the Bible says and what it means (which is often taken to be different). Thus, tens of thousands of different denominations of Christianity.

So may I ask........ which expert translation do you prefer to cling to?

None – I have no preference, and often consult several different versions of any selection of text. There are often differences.

However, I tend to trust that professional translators are more capable and experienced – and more likely to be correct than anonymous posters on the Internet.

I might want to discover why you dismissed the other professionals!
All these Word-Games!

Nice try.

Is this to claim, suggest, or acknowledge that Bible translators followed instructions to translate in certain ways (that might favor a given point of view)?

If so, I do not disagree.

At last..........

I have never taken a position that Bible translators did not have an agenda (favor a given point of view). If that is a “revelation� to some perhaps they do not read such posts.

I question the legitimacy of the amateur opinions – which often have the appearance of manipulating the words to fit their argument.

Ha ha! A Well known expert-witness, a handwriting expert who wrote the training manual on HW I.D. was recently caught out, adjusting his findings according to whether the Prosecution or the Defence was paying him.

Sure enough, money and/or influence often buy whatever results are desired. Emotion and religious fervor can have similar effect.

You seem to trust certain groups of people above others...... I do not.

I definitely do trust information (in their area of expertise) from: Medically trained personnel over someone off the street; Researchers studies over folklore; Airline pilots over non-pilots; AND professional translators over anonymous posters on the Internet.

Is there sound reason to trust the amateurs more in each of those cases?

I have an objective view of all. I neither follow blindly, nor dismiss out-of-hand.

Same here – until people with little or no training in a field claim to know more than people who have put in the effort and time necessary master the subject.

This is not to say that highly trained people are never wrong – but rather that the chance of them being right is far greater than untrained people.

If I want legal information I consult an attorney – not a plumber – and if I want plumbing advice I consult a plumber, not an attorney.

Does this include investigation of the findings of Bible translators. If not, it is of no significance in this debate.

Yes.... If you haven't researched this then I could give examples. I've already offered to help you out here.

Okay, which of the many Bible translations, if any, is correct – and which translators are responsible?

That comment is specifically aimed at Apologists. If one is NOT an Apologist they are not included.

Opinion noted.......... and not supported.

What support is needed for my explanation of my statement?

Humans with any bias or mission will be tempted to subject all to their adjusted viewpoints, I think.

I would go even farther to say that it would be unlikely to find any humans WITHOUT bias or mission regarding their viewpoint. So what?

A person need not be Christian to be an Apologist (defined as “a person who defends or supports something (such as a religion, cause, or organization) that is being criticized or attacked by other people�

So an Apologist defends something.
.....ummm...... What exactly do you think I am defending?

Since you ask, it appears to me as though you (in at least some cases) attempt to defend Christianity or its promoters in debate against attack. That meets the definition of apologist.

I'm simply debating that Word-Games are common to both Christian defenders and Atheist opponents.
A bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

Is this the “they do it too� defense that isn't acceptable even in school recess.

If the “miraculous� claims and stories (that cannot be supported by extra-biblical sources) are removed from the Bible, what is left on which to base a religion?

Why don't you ask a Christian?

I have – many times – no coherent answers (if any at all).

But you dismiss any reports from the bible, you have said before that without extra-biblical sources nothing has value.

Correction: I do NOT “dismiss any reports from the Bible�. However, I correctly note that all supernatural claims and stories about Jesus are unsupported by extra-biblical sources.

Bible stories mention some people, places, and events that can be verified by consulting other sources – and so does “Gone with the Wind�. So what?

If you don't want to accept anything written in the bible then that is up to you.

Since, “don't want to accept anything written in the Bible� does not apply to me, that is a non-applicable statement.

But I see Word-Games being used by opponents of Christianity, and will make mention every time I see them from now on.

If that is done on “both sides of the aisle� perhaps the practice can be reduced.

Perhaps Apologists could intervene when they observe fellow Apologists playing word games.

I see Word-Games here, in this thread.

Kindly quote word games being played by Non-Theists in this thread.

Which Professional Translation did you like best?

None

Whichever it is, then you are dismissing all those other Professionals.
You, an amateur, dismissing professionals!

As often happens when one makes an unwarranted assumption, it is dead wrong. Since I have no preference (none, zero, nada) I cannot be said to dismiss any of the professional translations or translators.

[JoeyKnothead]

Word games?

"That depends upon what the definition of the word 'is' is."

If'n you gotta parse the language such that only you know what words mean, well I get to parse my thinkin' such that you're up to somethin'.

[Danmark]

Golf is a religion to some. It fits one of the common usages of 'religion'.
[and]
I have to ask, if you are right and there are 'standard' definitions - who is the authority that dictates which definitions are 'standard' and which are not?

My dictionary defines religion this way;

religion

rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/

noun

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

"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

synonyms:faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More

1. a particular system of faith and worship.

plural noun: religions

"the world's great religions"

When you go on and try to equate this definition of religion with its secondary, and very different meaning, "2. a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion," you are engaging in the logical fallacy of "equivocation." Equivocation is is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time. The fallacy of equivocation is essentially, lying. It is a lie to claim that golf is a religion in the sense that Christianity is a religion, because it is dishonest to claim that golf fits in definition '1' when it fits only in definition '2.'

This post by P-horse is a perfect example of why Z's OP is necessary. When the argument is lost, the loser engages in a hopeless and transparent display of substituting one meaning of a word for another.

[Zzyzx]

.

When the argument is lost, the loser engages in a hopeless and transparent display of substituting one meaning of a word for another.

Perhaps word gamers actually think that their efforts fool readers. I doubt it.

I credit readers with judgment, discernment and the ability to distinguish between sound arguments vs. evasiveness (word play) or other disreputable / desperation tactics.

[catnip]

Golf is a religion to some. It fits one of the common usages of 'religion'.
[and]
I have to ask, if you are right and there are 'standard' definitions - who is the authority that dictates which definitions are 'standard' and which are not?

My dictionary defines religion this way;

religion

rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/

noun

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

"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

synonyms:faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More

1. a particular system of faith and worship.

plural noun: religions

"the world's great religions"

When you go on and try to equate this definition of religion with its secondary, and very different meaning, "2. a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion," you are engaging in the logical fallacy of "equivocation." Equivocation is is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time. The fallacy of equivocation is essentially, lying. It is a lie to claim that golf is a religion in the sense that Christianity is a religion, because it is dishonest to claim that golf fits in definition '1' when it fits only in definition '2.'

This post by P-horse is a perfect example of why Z's OP is necessary. When the argument is lost, the loser engages in a hopeless and transparent display of substituting one meaning of a word for another.

I do hate to say this, but I don't think that this is quite the way that the enumerated definitions of a word are to be applied. The usage of the word does not need to fit ALL the definitions. Each definition is provided to cover the usages of the word and they are separate. Ergo, it is not a logical fallacy.

Are you positive that there is not a religion based on golf? There are some very strange religions claimed in this world at this time.

[Zzyzx]

.

Are you positive that there is not a religion based on golf? There are some very strange religions claimed in this world at this time.

Thank you for illustrating what I said in post #67.

Perhaps a few readers are convinced that golf is (or is object of) a religion. However, that seems like a strange way to defend the legitimacy of ANY religion -- and it speaks toward one's credibility to take that position.

[Danmark]

Catnip wrote:

I do hate to say this, but I don't think that this is quite the way that the enumerated definitions of a word are to be applied. The usage of the word does not need to fit ALL the definitions. Each definition is provided to cover the usages of the word and they are separate. Ergo, it is not a logical fallacy.

Are you positive that there is not a religion based on golf? There are some very strange religions claimed in this world at this time

I am 'positive' that to some golf is a religion in the sense that golfers may be passionate and devoted to the game. I am also 'positive' that this is completely unrelated to the idea that there might be a 'god' of golf who created the world so that there might be golf courses.

Words have meanings. They have meanings which are accepted as standards. Then someone uses 'religion' in a metaphorical or poetic sense, saying that 'Bobby Jones is so obsessed with golf that it is as if it has become his religion." From this, a second meaning of 'religion' germinates.

To an idiot or a dishonest person golf is now a 'religion' despite the fact there is no supernatural, or divine aspect whatsoever.