Originally posted by googlefudgeYou don't have a sense of humour either. You should have recognised the quote from Lewis Carol.
When you get made into the ruler of the world and decider of meaning I'll give a damn.
Till then, you'll have to deal with the fact that you don't get to define the words everyone
else are using.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYour 'logic' is faulty.
You don't have a sense of humour either. You should have recognised the quote from Lewis Carol.
A) I could have not recognised the quote because I hadn't read Lewis Carol's works, or forgotten them.
B) I could have recognised the quote and not found it funny.
C) You could recognise that my post was sarcastic which is a form of [weaponised] humour.
D) I could have a sense of humour, but not been in the mood to use it.
E) I was mocking you, which is also a form of humour.
ect ect.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd Humpty Dumpty for that matter. An interesting example of a shift in the meaning of a word is "silly", which once meant holy. The association with other-worldyness meant that as time passed the word came to mean someone lacking common sense (in the normal meaning of common sense).
So long as you realise that they only mean that to you.
You see what I mean about a flame war, it always annoys both me and those who describe themselves as atheist.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThen the intelligent thing to do would be to accept that those that describe
And Humpty Dumpty for that matter. An interesting example of a shift in the meaning of a word is "silly", which once meant holy. The association with other-worldyness meant that as time passed the word came to mean someone lacking common sense (in the normal meaning of common sense).
You see what I mean about a flame war, it always annoys both me and those who describe themselves as atheist.
themselves as atheists and tell you the the criteria for being an atheist is simple
lack of belief are correct.
If only for the purposes of conversing with them.
Rather then trying to tell them that they are not in fact atheists and that they
don't know what the word atheist means and that the theists are the ones who get
to define what it means.
I will leave it to you to work out why it is you don't do the intelligent thing.
It seems that I'm late to the party here, but I'll post this anyway. Sorry if it needlessly covers already (mostly) settled ground . . .
Twhitehead really is correct. It is also true that communication becomes overburdened to the point of breakdown if we have to negotiate the usage of each and every (or even most of the) term(s) - and collapses completely if no agreement is possible.
BTW, I agree with Wittgenstein that to quarrel over what a word "really" means is somewhat wrong-headed: what matters is how the word is used in communication, and we are well-advised to follow the dictum, “Don’t look for the meaning, look for the use”. “Meaning” is neither singular nor static. Nevertheless, “meaning” itself is in standard usage, referring to a sign’s signified, so I won’t make a big argument about what “means” means. Usage is always contextual, as is understanding.
[Hell, there is no singular definition of “definition”!]
That does not mean that definitions are somehow right or wrong, or that it makes sense to say that a usage somehow “drifts” from “wrongness” to “rightness”. For example, when the word “gay” became used to refer to homosexuality, in addition to its prior usage referring to a carefree and happy attitude, there were (and still are) people who objected, along the lines of: “That’s not what the word means!” I wonder to what linguistic gods, or holy writ, they are appealing!
I participated in the previous debate that DeepThought mentioned, generally from the position of an agnostic (weak) atheist. But I think there is a problem when we start telling the other what they “really are” - especially by appealing to “right” or “wrong” definitions. In that debate, we were able to find - in the philosophical literature as well as dictionaries of conventional usage - both usages of the word “atheist”. And there is no ultimate definitional standard, no recognized final lexical authority, no linguistic gods or holy writ, to which anyone can appeal.
The phrases “agnostic atheist” and “agnostic theist” also came up, I believe. I recall that we also discussed the difference between “theoretical atheism” (or theism or agnosticism) and “practical atheism” (or theism or agnosticism). Now, those all seem to me to be perfectly usable terms, that pretty much cover the gambit - at least with regard to god-concepts that are coherent and have sense. With regard to incoherent notions, or those empty of sense, to speak of belief, or unbelief or disbelief, or even doubt, seems itself senseless.
Sometimes, of course, we are not that precise in our discourse - and don’t need to be. Again, usage is often determined contextually. DeepThought has explained what he means when calls himself agnostic (in one short sentence, the writing of which I am sure overburdened neither him nor us). I understand what he means, so the ability to communicate does not stand in question.
As Wittgenstein also pointed out, ordinary language ordinarily works quite well - without any appeal to dictionary dogmatism. In fact, I doubt that any “dogmatism of definitions” would enhance communication - except in highly technical areas of discourse. In this case, there is no definitional dogma in the technical (philosophical) literature (various “authoritative” philosophical sources were cited in the previous debate) - perhaps it will develop. Perhaps there are some who will insist that whatever becomes standard usage in the philosophical literature is nevertheless “wrong”.
In any case, I see no need to tell DeepThought that he’s “wrong” to call himself agnostic; nor do I see any grounds for him to tell me that I’m “wrong” to call myself an atheist - even if we intend essentially the same thing. I recall both sides doing that in the prior debate(s) - and I found it tiresome in the end. The most that was established was that various usages and understandings appear, again, in both conventional and technical dictionaries and encyclopedia.
So, in the end, even if I define an atheist as “a can of vegetable soup”, that definition is neither right nor wrong - it is, however, useless. If I “define” an atheist as “a square orange dancing purplely” - that is just senseless.
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat's pretty rich coming from a person who wishes to change the normative meaning of the very thing which he self-identifies with.
When you get made into the ruler of the world and decider of meaning I'll give a damn.
Till then, you'll have to deal with the fact that you don't get to define the words everyone
else are using.
The cutting edge atheists (tongue in cheek here) are working overtime to re-frame the meaning of atheism which so tortures the word and even the words used to re-define it, is borders on the absurd.
Originally posted by LemonJelloIt's been in the discussion lately, but substitute "belief in God" with 'winning the lottery,' and see if the results are the same.One has demonstrable Free Will, given that the choices available are all equally valid choices.
I do not understand your account of free will. 'Validity' here means what exactly? An invalid choice differs from a valid choice how exactly? Further, a less valid choice differs from a more valid choice how exactly? Two choices are equal ...[text shortened]... c states have formed, or not, in me based on a reading of the relevant evidence available to me.
Your claim:
The question of whether or not I believe in God is not a matter of what I choose to do, for I do not pick and choose such beliefs.
But then you admit:
It is an appointment with theoretical reasoning and it is a matter of what doxastic states have formed, or not, in me based on a reading of the relevant evidence available to me.
That sounds like a choice.
If you read all you felt necessary regarding lottery gains and decided not to purchase a ticket, you're still making a choice.
Buying one, not buying one: they're both equally valid options to a person with free will.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtMaybe you should read father down on Wikipedia's Agnosticism page, particularly the "Types of agnosticism" section, where it defines several types of agnosticism. Particularly, the first sentence of the section says "A person calling oneself 'agnostic' is stating that he or she has no opinion on the existence of God." This definition seems quite at odds with your definition.
Since you are so fond of Wikipedia as a source, maybe you should read the first paragraph of the page on Agnosticism.
Also, agnostic is used in non-religious ways, like "device agnostic" or "language agnostic," which are statement that imply that a person or device has "no preference." Please explain how your definition could apply to the terms "device agnostic" or "language agnostic."
Edit: One other thing to note. If we use your definitions of agnostic and atheism, then there are virtually no atheists on this board. If you want to use your definition, that's fine, but don't then claim that the non-theists on this board are atheists (under your definition) because it is not true.
Originally posted by vistesdHi vistesd, nice to converse again. Anyone who can get Wittgenstein into a post in a meaningful way has no reason to apologise for being late to the party. I quite like the idea of a square orange dancing purplely, by the way.
It seems that I'm late to the party here, but I'll post this anyway. Sorry if it needlessly covers already (mostly) settled ground . . .
Twhitehead really is correct. It is also true that communication becomes overburdened to the point of breakdown if we have to negotiate the usage of each and every (or even most of the) term(s) - and collapses complete ...[text shortened]... eless. If I “define” an atheist as “a square orange dancing purplely” - that is just senseless.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by vistesdHey Visted.
It seems that I'm late to the party here, but I'll post this anyway. Sorry if it needlessly covers already (mostly) settled ground . . .
Twhitehead really is correct. It is also true that communication becomes overburdened to the point of breakdown if we have to negotiate the usage of each and every (or even most of the) term(s) - and collapses complete ...[text shortened]... eless. If I “define” an atheist as “a square orange dancing purplely” - that is just senseless.
I agree with most of what you say, however I do have a couple of points I disagree with.
First, nobody was telling DeepThought he wasn't an agnostic, or that he couldn't or shouldn't
refer to himself as an agnostic. What was being objected to, was his attempt to tell those
who identify as atheists what the term atheist meant. Simply because he doesn't want the
term to apply to him, for some unarticulated reason.
If he's most comfortable identifying as an agnostic, if that's the philosophical position he most
identifies with then great for him. But that doesn't stop him from also being an atheist under the
most broad [and widely used by the community] meaning of the term.
And he shouldn't try to claim superiority of position by redefining atheism as a belief as a straw man
attack, just as theists do... Certainly he shouldn't do that and not expect and deserve flack for
doing so.
If you use the tactics of my enemy against me you become my enemy as well.
Secondly, and more interestingly.
I disagree that definitions cannot be wrong.
For example, if you are talking about science [evolution say] and you talk about evolution being
'just a theory' and not being a law, then you are using the wrong definition and meaning of the
word theory. In science the word theory has a very well defined meaning. The label points to
a very well described concept. If you use the word theory in that context and mean something
different then your meaning is wrong.
Similarly if you talk about the 'atheists on this forum', and mean atheist to be "a can of vegetable soup”
then that meaning is wrong. You are pointing the word at the wrong concept.
Or if you say "I have two apples" and mean 'two' to mean 147, you are pointing the label 'two' at the
wrong concept. It's wrong because you are conveying to the reader a totally different concept than
the one you intend. There is a total mismatch in the concepts in the mind of the sender and reliever.
It's wrong because the core purpose of language is to do the opposite, to accurately convey meaning,
concepts, from one mind to another.
I would probably say my position is best summed up by this article on LessWrong.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/
The meanings of words can't just be arbitrarily re-definable, or they have no meaning and communication is impossible.
So it must be possible for words to be defined incorrectly [in context] and thus 'definitions' can be wrong.
If this is not the case I can just redefine the word wrong to make it so, and you have no argument
to prevent me doing so. 😉
Originally posted by googlefudgeHi, GF.
Hey Visted.
I agree with most of what you say, however I do have a couple of points I disagree with.
First, nobody was telling DeepThought he wasn't an agnostic, or that he couldn't or shouldn't
refer to himself as an agnostic. What was being objected to, was his attempt to tell those
who identify as atheists what the term atheist meant. Simply ...[text shortened]... ust redefine the word wrong to make it so, and you have no argument
to prevent me doing so. 😉
1st, I just want to say that I wasn't accusing you of telling DT what he "really" is or isn't. I'm sorry if it came off that way. But I do recall both sides of the atheist/agnostic argument doing that in the earlier long debate.
2nd, I'll take a look at your citation when I get a chance. I will concede that it makes sense to say that a term is being used incorrectly - vis-a-vis a given context. That would not mean that such a usage is in general "wrong", or that it can't be applied "correctly" in other contexts. Surely, as I tried to say above, such a determination is context driven - and the incorrectness a matter of convention in the given context, for the sake of communication.
An example: I recall a mathematician friend who used the word "torsion" in his dissertation. He said that the extra-departmental member of his examining committee got al excited, and started to argue that Joe wasn't using the term correctly - he was an engineering professor who understood the word in a sense totally different from Joe's usage in a particular mathematical context.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by vistesd
Hi, GF.
1st, I just want to say that I wasn't accusing you of telling DT what he "really" is or isn't. I'm sorry if it came off that way. But I do recall both sides of the atheist/agnostic argument doing that in the earlier long debate.
2nd, I'll take a look at your citation when I get a chance. I will concede that it makes sense to say that a te ...[text shortened]... ood the word in a sense totally different from Joe's usage in a particular mathematical context.
I will concede that it makes sense to say that a term is being used incorrectly - vis-a-vis a given context.
That is pretty much all I am arguing. If you accept that then we are in agreement.
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou may be using the wrong definition, but implicit in what you said, is the fact that there are two definitions, neither of which is, when used correctly, 'wrong'. It is just not what the original speaker (science in this case) meant by the word, so this is a case of misunderstanding (whether deliberately or otherwise) rather than a case of a word inherently having a 'correct' definition and a 'wrong' definition.
For example, if you are talking about science [evolution say] and you talk about evolution being
'just a theory' and not being a law, then you are using the wrong definition and meaning of the
word theory.
And in actual fact you do understand what the creationist means when he says 'just a theory'.
On a related note, a very common mistake I see a lot on this forum is the concept that if you can successfully make a word stick, then you can start making conclusions about something based on other connotations that word may carry with it, that were not necessary used when trying to apply the label.
Originally posted by googlefudgeThis is what you said on page 11 post 7, in reply to a post of mine where I identified myself as an agnostic, but not an atheist:
Hey Visted.
I agree with most of what you say, however I do have a couple of points I disagree with.
First, nobody was telling DeepThought he wasn't an agnostic, or that he couldn't or shouldn't
refer to himself as an agnostic. What was being objected to, was his attempt to tell those
who identify as atheists what the term atheist meant. Simply ...[text shortened]... ust redefine the word wrong to make it so, and you have no argument
to prevent me doing so. 😉
Thus anyone who traditionally defines themselves as an agnostic is also an atheist.How was I meant to interpret this as anything other than you telling me that really I am an atheist?