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?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

In the interest of fairness you may also wish to consider that many Christians do find that words are being limited in their use simply to confine the debate.

Are you arguing that since you can't win the debate on Christian ground that you feel it necessary to have a general chat about it?

Also do you ever observe how some words get given wide definitions and other words get narrow definitions. It's almost arbitrary, as if done to suit the debate. For instance faith gets defined very narrowly in a way that no Christian identifies with and marriage gets defined very widely.

And how is a Christian wrong in their word usage actually? Idol worship has always covered the concept of more than having faith in false gods. And it does seem more people attend to golf more religiously than Christians do to church. It's a worthwhile debate topic for those that are interested to do so. Why can't we let them?

I can see you observe what you observe but can you observe how your argument appears to others? Word games are indeed being played.

When we control language - we control thought. Do you really want to be on that side of the debate?

[bluethread]

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).

It isn't that Bible translators and editors are incompetent, it is often a matter of best fit. That best fit might be for accuracy or for readability. That is how it is with all translation. That is where the phrase "lost in translation" comes from. When one is determining authors intent, standard literary criticism calls for taking not only the definition, but the historical and cultural connotations into account. It is just that in general people don't argue the intent of Cervantes in Don Quixote. That said, there are people who argue that the ruby slippers in the Wizard of Oz should have been silver. The latter is a matter of translation from literature to color photography.

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.

I have observed that people have a valid point they do not need to discount context. However, those without a valid point, often insist on a singular literal out of context reading, that gives the impression of moral superiority.

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

No, however, grammatical, historical and cultural context are necessary to determine an authors intent, regardless of the substance of the text.

[Zzyzx]

.

In the interest of fairness you may also wish to consider that many Christians do find that words are being limited in their use simply to confine the debate.

It must be frustrating when others do not accept religious definitions. However, this is not church or a revival meeting so

Are you arguing that since you can't win the debate on Christian ground that you feel it necessary to have a general chat about it?

I do not debate “on Christian ground� – where that belief system is given preferential treatment.

It would be rather naïve to conclude that I shy away from debate – at least it appears as though Non-Theists do not make such foolish assumption. By putting this topic in General Chat I intended to encourage participation in discussion.

However, I am more than willing to debate the subject in C&A

Also do you ever observe how some words get given wide definitions and other words get narrow definitions. It's almost arbitrary, as if done to suit the debate.

Exactly. “A day can mean a thousand years� is an example, and “faith� means trust that the trash will be collected on schedule, and “Atheism is a religion�.

Such sloppy use of language stands in the way of effective communication – but often serves the purpose of those who cannot support their contentions with evidence.

For instance faith gets defined very narrowly in a way that no Christian identifies with and marriage gets defined very widely.

Correction: Theists have attempted to define “faith� so broadly as to include the garbage pickup or a car starting.

How would you define faith?

And how is a Christian wrong in their word usage actually?

Christian or not, sloppy word usage degrades communication. Using esoteric definitions in general / open debate detracts from debate.

Idol worship has always covered the concept of more than having faith in false gods.

Which gods are false – and how is that known?

And it does seem more people attend to golf more religiously than Christians do to church.

Does that make golf a religion?

Although I do not have any interest in golf, at least golfers get a bit of exercise and some fresh air.

Church attendance is declining AND people lie on surveys to indicate higher attendance. Forty percent of the US population claims on surveys to attend church regularly and actual church attendance figures indicate twenty percent. If the latter is true that is 64 million person hours per week (assuming one-hour in church) listening to tens of thousands of different versions of “what God wants� and “what the Bible really means�.

It's a worthwhile debate topic for those that are interested to do so. Why can't we let them?

I have moved the topic to C&A

I can see you observe what you observe but can you observe how your argument appears to others?

If the “others� are theistic debate opponents, their reaction is of no concern.

I trust that readers note the prevalence of word play by Theists.

Word games are indeed being played.

Yes, that is why I opened the topic.

When we control language - we control thought. Do you really want to be on that side of the debate?

Who “controls the language�? I have no need or desire to do so but instead refer to general-use dictionaries and do not invent my own definitions to fit any argument.

[parsivalshorse]

.
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

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

What 'word game'? Words often have multiple meanings. Why not just clarify terms when debating?

[Divine Insight]

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).

This is not a problem just for Christian apologists. This has always been a problem for these dogmatic religions in general. Even the "official clergy and theologians" argue over that these dogmas "really mean".

This has been taking place in Christianity for centuries. And this is also the reason that Christianity is the most highly fractured and fragmented religion in the world. I don't think any other religion can boast of having as many different denominations of Christianity has.

I was just listening to a program on NPR radio where they were talking about how modern day Islam is currently going through internal struggles with trying to "reinterpret" their Qur'an to make it more palatable in today's world concerning the rights of women. Clearly they can't cling to those old male-chauvinistic laws any longer. Yet within the Islamic theological circles this is highly problematic because Islam was never quite as open to "reinterpretation" of the scriptures as Christianity has traditionally been. It's considered blaspheme by many Islamic theologians to try to "interpret" anything in the Qur'an since the Qur'an is supposed to be infallible just as it's written verbatim. Therefore if the Qur'an says that a woman is a man's property and must obey him, then there is nothing that needs to be "reinterpreted".

Christianity got a jump on Islam in this regard, especially with the birth of Protestantism when the Papal authority was rejected and the new idea that every Christian should let the "Holy Spirit" guide them in their understanding began. Of course, even with Protestantism it's still not fully embraced that everyone should interpret the Bible however they personally see fit, so Protestantism was always hypocritical on that point anyway.

But in any case, these "word games" with these religions have been going on forever, and Islam is only just now starting to realize the importance of playing word games if they intend to cling to their religion into the 21st century.

Pretty soon Islam will become "A Personal Walk with Allah", just as Christianity has become a "Personal Walk with Jesus" for many anti-religious Christians.

These dogmatic religions were doomed to die. The very dogmatic nature of them requires that they necessarily must die as humans continue to become more educated and take on higher moral values than even the creators of these dogmas could have ever imagined.

[Zzyzx]

.

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).

It isn't that Bible translators and editors are incompetent, it is often a matter of best fit. That best fit might be for accuracy or for readability. That is how it is with all translation. That is where the phrase "lost in translation" comes from. When one is determining authors intent, standard literary criticism calls for taking not only the definition, but the historical and cultural connotations into account.

Do you suppose that professional, scholarly Bible translators are aware of such things?

When amateur religionists on a website correct the translations of professional, scholarly Bible translators is that because the amateurs understand better the author's intent, and historical / cultural connotations than do professionals / scholars?

Or might it be that the amateur wishes to put a particular “spin� on translations in order to bolster a failing argument?

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.

I have observed that people have a valid point they do not need to discount context. However, those without a valid point, often insist on a singular literal out of context reading, that gives the impression of moral superiority.

“Out of context� is a common Theist “argument� – even when entire passages are quoted.

If the Bible doesn't say what it means and mean what it says, what is its value?

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

No, however, grammatical, historical and cultural context are necessary to determine an authors intent, regardless of the substance of the text.

Are Bible-Believers better qualified to evaluate such things than are Non-Believers. It seems as though many Theists who debate here assume superiority for their “interpretations�.

Does belief impart special knowledge and ability?

Is it possible that a Non-Theist have a greater understanding and ability of Bible writings that a Theist?

[Zzyzx]

.

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

What 'word game'? Words often have multiple meanings. Why not just clarify terms when debating?

Thanks for the demonstration of the word games often used to detract from reasoned and honorable debate.

In a reasoned discussion / debate of world religions does one list Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Shinto, Buddhism, Golf, Knitting, Hang Gliding, Stock Car Racing, Kayaking, Target Shooting?

If one frequently ("religiously") consumes large amounts of alcohol should that be classified as a religion?

Perhaps I should not object when Apologists equate their religion to stock car racing, golf, knitting, etc. However, it does strike me as odd.

[parsivalshorse]

.

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

What 'word game'? Words often have multiple meanings. Why not just clarify terms when debating?

Thanks for the demonstration of the word games often used to detract from reasoned and honorable debate.

It is an appropriate usage under a common definition. Inferring it is dishonorable doesn't change that. It is not a rebuttal either.

In a reasoned discussion / debate of world religions does one list Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Shinto, Buddhism, Golf, Knitting, Hang Gliding, Stock Car Racing, Kayaking, Target Shooting?

If one frequently ("religiously") consumes large amounts of alcohol should that be classified as a religion?

Perhaps I should not object when Apologists equate their religion to stock car racing, golf, knitting, etc. However, it does strike me as odd.

Why? It is just how language works. From MW: religion
a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
"consumerism is the new religion"

[parsivalshorse]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

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"

2. a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

"consumerism is the new religion"

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

If (for example) part of the population of Zimbabwe begin to apply a different usage of a common word - let's say 'mean'. Now instead of using 'mean' to refer to a person who was 'miserly' (which is one of many known usages of 'mean') they start using it to refer to girls they thought were really lovely. Ok?
Well what happens is that dictionaries just begin to include the new usage.
They do not have the power to prevent such changes in usage, nor is it their role.

All that changes is that local dictionaries begin to include yet another definition of 'mean', just as they have for 'gay', 'wicked', 'bad' and hell - just about every other word in the English language over time. I keep making the point that there are no 'standard' definitions, because there is no authority in existence that can impose such a standard or deny the legitimacy of other usages.