Debating words, and not the concepts they represent

[Kamehameha34]

I'm running into a lot of hostility in the philosophy and religion forum, chiefly because of certain stigmas attached to certain words.

Take the word "god", for example. Many people opposed to the existence of such a being tend to define the word differently, so it is easier to disprove. They are "defining it into impossibility". The flaw in this tactic, however, is that the subject is skewed - making the definition of such terms a foremost subject for debate. It no longer addresses the concept proposed by non-denominational theists.

Many fail to realize that, by defining the word into impossibility, they are no longer addressing the proposal set by their opposition.

I'll conceptualize my point:

Two friends are in an argument about the contents of a box. One says that there is an animal in the box, and the other says that there isn't.

The one that says there isn't an animal in the box states that an elephant is too big to fit in the box.

He has proven that an elephant, a particular animal, can't fit in the box, but it doesn't rule out the possibility of all other kinds of animals. They are no longer talking about the same thing, which hinders proactive discussion.



Don't debate which words people use to describe things, debate the things being described - and describe them with the words that society deems most relevant (aka dictionary definitions ).

[Jack]

There is no fear of "defining it into impossibility" when speaking of gods. Let's call it what it really is, specificity.

You want to debate a general-concept god, the "creator of the universe". Then you added the quality of consciousness, which gives us an aware creator of the universe. Super fine...two qualities.

Then you challenge atheists to prove this thing's nonexistence.

You can't even bother to ask a specific question then expect a comprehensive answer.

The only danger when discussing the gods is being too general. It's also nearly impossible to have a meaningful discussion of people. It helps to know which people we're discussing. The more specific the topic, the more in depth the discussion.

So the only answer that you deserve is that, yes, gods exist. It's a word, one in that precious dictionary. It's a combination of four frequently used letters in the alphabet, one vowel and three consonants. It's a code that initiates a mental image in the mind of the hearer or reader, one that's different for each individual. No two people share the exact same perception of the image called up when encountering the word gods. There is no scientific evidence that it's any more than a meme, a learned concept that is unique to the individual.

[Kamehameha34]

There is no fear of "defining it into impossibility" when speaking of gods. Let's call it what it really is, specificity.

That's the purple, flying elephant argument. Just because we can prove that such elephants do not exist does not prove that no elephants exist.

There are an endless amount of possible deities which do not contradict any evidence we have accrued. Disproving one of them is meaningless.


If you think it's unfair to disprove the concept of god, as defined in the dictionary, you shouldn't have assumed a theistic position that holds that no god exists. If you assume a belief that's "too general" to defend, then it's a poorly structured belief.

If, however, you are arguing from an agnostic/weak atheistic point of view, as opposed to the strong athseistic stance, you aren't obligated to prove anything. Just know that you express strong atheism as soon as you draw "there are no gods" from "there is no evidence for a god".

[Jack]

If you assume a belief that's "too general" to defend, then it's a poorly structured belief.

What are you talking about? I said quite plainly (obviously not to you) that specificity was preferred over being too general in your question.
I don't have a belief, and the only thing too general is the question you keep asking.

The rest of your post I'm choosing to ignore. You just keep repeating the same thing, you don't appear to understand why you're getting so much flack from almost everyone. If you continue to refuse to allow anyone else to speak for themselves, keep inserting those smarmy little asides and don't show a little respect for other's viewpoint, anyone would be wasting their time entering into a debate with you.

[Kamehameha34]

What are you talking about? I said quite plainly (obviously not to you) that specificity was preferred over being too general in your question. I don't have a belief, and the only thing too general is the question you keep asking.

If you believe that no gods exist (strong atheism), then you hold a general belief. If you simply deny the proposition of gods without a positive rejection of them, then you aren't required to attack the concept of gods altogether.

You're trying to defend the beliefs of strong atheism, while holding yourself as a weak atheist.

The rest of your post I'm choosing to ignore.

You actually addressed part of the post that was most "deserving of flack".

[Technosoul]

I ran into the same problem in the science section when my posting read "A new theory about the origins of the universe" (or something like that).

Right away a number of people started to debate that I did not post a theory, and that the word "theory" was this or that.

Now the Random House Dictionary had different meanings for the word "theory". Number 8 said that a theory is "a speculation" or "guess".

But guess what, they would not debate the idea I was presenting because they said it was wrong to call it a theory. As they said a theory must come after a peer review and must contain some predictable test and so forth, along with some physics to demonstate the "logic" for the theory ( the Guess).

However.

"God" is a concept often used in religion and phylosophy and most people who speak on those topics have a basic "meaning" in mind as they speak. The god concepts are not all that different from one another.

"God" as a topic is not a scientific idea nor one having to do with technology. The standards used for trying to prove a science theory would be different then the standards used for debating a religious idea or a concept proposed as a philosophy. The trouble is that people come into the religion forum and try debate the words and their meanings in the same way as one would for a scientific theory. But science has a different way of obtaining their evidence then those who do so via experiencing faith or belief.

Which is like trying to fix a car with things you use in the kitchen to cook with. Cooking and car repair are two different things, as is science and religion when it comes to "knowing" what to do.

[Zhavric]

Let's not tap-dance around the issue and address the argument honestly:

Theist: "There's a healthy live adult elephant in the one foot cube box."

Atheist: "That contradicts what we know to be true about healthy living adult elephants and boxes."

At this point we have an honest argument where we can discuss evidence for claims, look at what's already been proven, etc. Enter the agnostic:

Agnostic: "We don't know whats' in the box. The elephant could be any type of elephant including one that's not adult, live, healthy or even elephant."

Nothing here is tenable. We don't need to know what's in the box to know an elephant isn't a legitimate possibility (it would be crushed dead). Stating "we don't know what's in the box" isn't valid because we do know what what won't fit in the box due to the attributes of the concepts in question. Out comes the proverbial wood crafting tools as the agnostic attempts to round a square peg to get it to fit. Out come the unsupported claims. "It's possible for elephants to be healthy when crushed into one foot cubes" etc.

You've claimed agnostics are only interested in evidence, but that's very obviously not the case. Agnostics are interested in possibilities and ignoring evidence based on said possibilities: "Omnipotence contradicts what we know to be true about the creation of energy!? Well... well... god may not be omnipotent. There! Now I don't have to worry about that piece of evidence."

How convenient?

[Fonceai]

To address the actual post and not those who are using this as an opportunity to drag another thread into this one...

If two people are talking about something, and one is using the dictionary definition and the other is using their own definition for the word, who is right?

The one using the dictionary definition.

In this world, certain assumptions have to be made if we want to communicate about philosophical topics, and the simpler the assumption the better.

"atheist" is assumed to mean "doesn't believe in god"
"evil" is assumed to mean "malicious intent"... etc.

Most of us function in these discussion perfectly fine using just those assumptions. 9 times out of 10, someone shows up to rock the boat and starts disagreeing, and of those 9 out of 10 times, it's because the person is not using the common dictionary definition.

For example, Autolykos defines "aggression" as "initiating acts of force or violence" while the dictionary defines it as "acts of force or violence". The conflicting definitions were a stumbling block until he stated that it was how he defined it.

Usually when someone says, "The dictionary says this..." and the other person says, "Well I say this..." then the problem is with the latter.

The resistance you are encountering is because you are using very specific definitions of a word and applying them to the overall concept.

You make a general statement and are shown to be wrong.

Then you say that you meant something different with one of the words. This is either because:

1. You truly were using your own definition and not the dictionary definition.
2. You are trying to cover up a bad statement by over-qualifying it.

It is possible to be "specified" to death in a debate. You continually add more and more rigid qualifiers to your statements until in the end you have a statement that has nothing to do, and is sometimes contradictory to, your original topic.

And then you cop attitude with people because they don't understand your definition or disagree with it.

You're the kid. You're the one who is still in school. And unless the dictionary has changed in the past 30-40 years (and it hasn't) then you might defer to the common knowledge of the world here on Volconvo and not on your incomplete understanding of the world.

[Kamehameha34]

Spare me the failed circumlocution.

I am the one citing dictionary definitions. You, and others, are disagreeing because of "years of study", or some equally ridiculous bullox.

Words are defined. The English language is confined to the dictionary - a source that you are not in total agreement with.

Agnostic: "We don't know whats' in the box. The elephant could be any type of elephant including one that's not adult, live, healthy or even elephant." Nothing here is tenable. We don't need to know what's in the box to know an elephant isn't a legitimate possibility (it would be crushed dead). Stating "we don't know what's in the box" isn't valid because we do know what what won't fit in the box due to the attributes of the concepts in question. Out comes the proverbial wood crafting tools as the agnostic attempts to round a square peg to get it to fit. Out come the unsupported claims. "It's possible for elephants to be healthy when crushed into one foot cubes" etc.

Despite your trollish repetition of this nonsense, you've not provided one reason why our universe couldn't facilitate a god.

As far as we know, that one foot box could be the size of a football stadium.

You are a very poor debator if you require the other side to define their stance into impossibility in order for you to address it. If you don't think the concept of "god" isn't defined fairly, then don't assume the position that it doesn't exist. Picking a position because you don't like the word "god", then throwing sones at the dictionary because you can't disprove it is unreasonable and nonsensical.

[bishop]

the semantics game is a common one... i tend to believe that those who focus on semantics over the issue/topic-at-hand do so out of limited understanding of the issues.. easier to focus on semantics instead.

what further amazes to me, is when the dittoheads jump into the threads to congratulate the person for creating big posts focusing entirely on semantics - posts that substantively add no value at all imo.

[Praxius]

My basis on weither or not God or Gods exist is based on my studies.... and yes, definitions of what a God is.

I've been following religious beliefs from as far back as Greek mythologies and aboriginal teachings..... far back before Christianity and the sort were ever thought of.

Each religion takes something from another in order to link the new belief to those who hold onto the old ways of thinking.

Christianity copied the concept of Angels, Heavens in the clouds and halos around heads from Greek Mythology. Roman mythology is pretty much a direct copy of Greek Mythology. The list goes on.

God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You mentioned that you would like to see people disprove all Gods, not just one..... well.... start listing them.

[Kamehameha34]

I'll save some time, and I'll just say the one factor that they all share:

They, potentially, created our universe.