Atheism

[Existentialist]

I believe in free speech too. If you want to say that the word "banana" means "to dive off of cliffs while wearing tuxedos", then that's fine -- just  don't expect people to understand you. We have dictionaries for a reason. A common meaning to words is essential for any meaningful conversation.

It seems to me that most people have understood what I have said in this conversation, so the problem hasn't arisen.  I agree a common meaning to words is essential for any meaningful conversation, but common meanings can be arrived at by the parties explaining themselves during the conversation, as I did very fully in my previous post today.  Dictionaries may provide information about different usages of words, but even dictionary definitions for the same word can contradict each other, as they do for the word atheist.  Even where dictionaries don't contradict themselves, I don't recognise them as something along the lines of legislation, that forbids a person being free to say what they want.  Where a person is using an uncommon definition which a dictionary may not have referenced, they can still be understood if they explain their own definition at the start of the conversation.  I therefore hope that you banana enjoyably, though I'd recommend wearing something in addition to a tuxedo, for decency's sake.

[LegendarySandwich]

I believe in free speech too. If you want to say that the word "banana" means "to dive off of cliffs while wearing tuxedos", then that's fine -- just  don't expect people to understand you. We have dictionaries for a reason. A common meaning to words is essential for any meaningful conversation.

It seems to me that most people have understood what I have said in this conversation, so the problem hasn't arisen.  I agree a common meaning to words is essential for any meaningful conversation, but common meanings can be arrived at by the parties explaining themselves during the conversation, as I did very fully in my previous post today.  Dictionaries may provide information about different usages of words, but even dictionary definitions for the same word can contradict each other, as they do for the word atheist.  Even where dictionaries don't contradict themselves, I don't recognise them as something along the lines of legislation, that forbids a person being free to say what they want.  Where a person is using an uncommon definition which a dictionary may not have referenced, they can still be understood if they explain their own definition at the start of the conversation.  I therefore hope that you banana enjoyably, though I'd recommend wearing something in addition to a tuxedo, for decency's sake.

Agreed.

[Davin]

[spoiler:3s4ngcch]

In my opinion

a) I support free speech.  As far as I am concerned, 'atheism' can mean anything anybody wants it to mean.

on the basis of a), atheism can mean

b) disbelief in gods
c) the belief or position that there is no god
d) the absence of theism

I support free speech because I support free speech.  Even if all the internet pages in the world were saying that free speech is a bad thing and should not be supported, I would still support it.  As I believe in free speech, it follows that I must concede everybody absolute freedom to speak freely.  People have absolute freedom to say what they want to me, as far as I am concerned.  If I were to restrict in any way people's freedom to use the word 'atheism' to mean anything they wanted, then I would be contradicting my own support for free speech.  If I were to require everybody who wanted to use the word 'atheism' to mean something which could not be evidenced by another web page, then I would be restricting their freedom of speech.

I have said that Davin's use of the word 'atheism' to mean 'absence of theism' is not a definition I agree with.  By this I mean it isn't a definition that I would use.  When I use the word 'atheist' I use it to mean some close approximation to 'the belief or position that there is no god'.  This does not prevent me from having a conversation with other atheists, it just means that I would probably disagree more with other atheists who claim that atheism means 'absence of theism' - people like Davin, for example, who maintains the position that we shouldn't in his words 'try and make the word mean anything more than that'.

I do not think that my disagreeing with Davin would conflict with my belief in free speech.  Davin is free to say what his opinion about the word 'atheism', I too am free to do so.

My belief in free speech and my beliefs about atheism aren't held in isolation from other beliefs.  I believe everybody should be treated with dignity and respect, I do not use bad language, I do not suggest that what other people think is of no consequence whatsoever, I don't agree with mocking people.

[/spoiler:3s4ngcch]I believe in free speech too. Some one can tell me that "atheism" means "the belief in ninja mothers who kill people while breast feeding", and they have every freedom to do so, however allowing a person to say what they want is not connected to just letting them incorrectly define the meaning of words. I can say "don't try to change the meaning of a word just because you can't understand how language works" fully expecting people to still do so. Not because I'm against free speech, it's more of a warning that I'm just mental enough to sit and argue against incorrect definitions of certain words till the end of time or my death, whichever comes first. I know this may scare some people who don't wish to back up baseless speculation with rational things like evidence, precedence, examples and/or sources, however in the realm of free speech, one is allowed to say what they want and other people are allowed to question it. I'm not preventing anyone from voicing their opinion on the matter, I'm just voicing mine right back while providing the reasoning and precedence behind why I'm sure I know what the word means. I'm also not asking anyone to just take my say so, which is why I provide the evidence and reasoning behind my conclusions.

Sure Existentialist, your such a nice person that you don't believe in using "nuaghtie words" or making fun of someone... you just believe that it's alright to clearly take what another person says out of context, thinly veil dictator ad hominems and never even attempt to provide the basis to your assertions while telling other people they're wrong. Which is, in my opinion, much more rude than saying the word "shit" or telling someone that their reasoning is ridiculous.

I don't eat babies (at least not live ones). I don't do drugs. I don't pal around with terrorists. I don't break my promises to support the troops just because some liberals don't like it. I don't squeegee Microsoft windows and I definitely don't make out with watermelons. People like Existentialist, for example, want people to just take what they say without providing any reasonable precedence for accepting what they say... people like Existentialist want to take away your freedom of speech, people like Existentialist are dictators who want to force meanings down your throat, so vote for me, Davin, because I value your freedoms!

Sorry, just your post really reminds me of a political smear ad.

[spoiler:3s4ngcch]

On the subject of free speech I agree that if everybody used their own definitions of words then conversations would be chaotic and unsatisfactory.  In my opinion that is a big 'if'.  I tend to find most people are trustworthy and when they talk or write, they're usually trying to be understood.  This generally means they keep to common meanings.  Where they don't keep to common meanings, I have enough trust that they are trying to get across a meaning that they have thought about deeply and can only get across by using an unusual meaning.  This is a legitimate means of communication for me.  I believe in free speech.

I understand that an empiricist - someone who demands empirical evidence before they positively believe something is true - would not take the same stance as me.  They would be quite insistent that the meaning of any word must be verified by a source.  I realise this is a cause of friction in this conversation, and I'm sorry about that, but I'm not an empiricist, my position is more that of an existentialist, which is characterised by a more subjective thinking.  For me all things flow from the position that we, as human individuals, have absolute freedom.

[/spoiler:3s4ngcch]Not really, just if someone is going to claim to know what a word means and also claim that another person is wrong, then I think they need to back up what they say with evidence instead of just baseless speculation. Especially when accusing someone else of being wrong. Especially when the someone else provided evidence, precedence and examples.

[spoiler:3s4ngcch]

On the subject of not believing or accepting the truth of anything which is not supported by evidence, when it comes to concepts, the most compelling evidence for me is always the internal logic and internal consistency of the argument that is being put forward.  External references tend to get in the way.  For example it has been argued doggedly that the greek prefix a- or an- can only ever apply to the whole word it is preceding.  If this is correct then to my mind the suffix -ism must also be applied to the whole word it suffixes.  This is a major logical problem to apply to any word that has an a- prefix and suffix -ism, like for example the word 'atheism'.

It seems to me it is just as legitimate to apply the suffix -ism to the root 'athe-' as it is to apply the prefix a- to the word 'theism'.  In that case, the rule being argued for cannot possibly be consistent with itself.  I can see that by discounting the word 'athe-' as not being an english word then the only acceptable combination would be to add the prefix a- to the word theism.  The problem is that I don't see why it is legitimate to discount the root word 'athe-', and I wouldn't accept any rule of that kind anyway.

[/spoiler:3s4ngcch]First of all, "athe" is not a root word, the root word is "the, theo, theos".
Second of all, you're applying the rules of prefixes to the suffixes. They're two different things, wouldn't that logically mean that they work differently too?
Third of all, what is your reasoning and your precedence for doing so? Just to make it logically inconsistent?

What seems to you is not compelling to me, nor should it be compelling to anyone who wishes to be rational.

In any case, atheism can mean whatever anybody wants it to mean.  I believe in free speech.

Existentialist claims to support free speech, but really just wants to obfuscate speech until we're all forced to learn Spanish and let the illegal immigrants take over the country...

My name is Davin Creed, and I approve of this message.

[Stevil]

Given the following definitions

Word    ------                      Definition
pigs       --------                        to have the value of
will       ---------                        used to indicate derivation, origin, or source
dance   ------                         indefinite article - not any particular or certain one of a class or group
when    -------                          the rejection of belief in the existence of deities
I          ------------                          lack; deficiency
fly        ----------                          used, esp. before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a  or an
naked   ------                         confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof
under    ------                        used to indicate inclusion within something abstract or immaterial
moonlight   -                   the creator and ruler of the universe

Do you understand what I am saying when I state:
"When pigs fly I will dance naked under moonlight"

[hackenslash]

I know I said I wasn't going to respond again, but some drivel just needs to be addressed.

In my opinion

What's that saying about something that everybody's got?

a) I support free speech.  As far as I am concerned, 'atheism' can mean anything anybody wants it to mean.

Nonsense. Free speech has bugger all to do with the definitions of words, and this statement demonstrates that you don't, in fact, have any idea of what you're talking about. Definitions, and linguistics in general, are devised to engender clarity. What you have proposed here is only obfuscation, the antithesis of clarity.

on the basis of a), atheism can mean

b) disbelief in gods
c) the belief or position that there is no god
d) the absence of theism

Note the bolded bits. Can you say 'tautological tautology'? Your b) and d) are equivalent definitions. Disbelief in a deity is the absence of  belief in a deity.

Can't be arsed with the rest. Your argument is defeated and demonstrated to be nothing more than rectally extracted blind assertion, with no support, and no substantive response to the rigorous definitions cited, those being rigorous by dint of having been supported by rigorous explanation. All you have in response is some guff about your opinions, disagreements and other equally vapid and value-free bum-custard.

Please attempt to conduct your discourse with something of greater substance, or your arguments will be open to the same ridicule they (not you) have received here.

I hope you take note of my new signature line, which is in honour of yourself and Achronos.

[Existentialist]

Given the following definitions

Word    ------                      Definition
pigs       --------                        to have the value of
will       ---------                        used to indicate derivation, origin, or source
dance   ------                         indefinite article - not any particular or certain one of a class or group
when    -------                          the rejection of belief in the existence of deities
I          ------------                          lack; deficiency
fly        ----------                          used, esp. before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a  or an
naked   ------                         confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof
under    ------                        used to indicate inclusion within something abstract or immaterial
moonlight   -                   the creator and ruler of the universe

Do you understand what I am saying when I state:
"When pigs fly I will dance naked under moonlight"

My goodness Stevil - you have been working hard!  I think you mean, "I need to contrive a sentence to ridicule Existentialist's support of freedom of speech and in particular his proposition that people are free to make up whatever meanings they want for the words they choose."  This may not be your surface meaning, which I don't have time to interpret (sorry), so I have read between the lines, however I think I have interpreted your words reasonably faithfully to find an approximation of your underlying meaning.  The challenge really wasn't that hard.  

I see that Davin has also taken up the challenge in his latest post.  This thread could take some time!  So far in this thread, the only people who have invented unique new definitions for words are those who are opposed to doing so!

Interestingly, though several people have sought to demonstrate the absurdity of individual freedom to invent definitions for words, the same people don't seem to mind that Davin (another adherent to the model of human objectivity) made up his own unique definition for the word atheism, which he has consistently argued that nobody should contradict .  The only point of my arguing here is to protect Davin's freedom to say that atheism means 'absence of theism', whilst also saying that everybody else too is free to make up whatever definitions they want as well - against Davin's wishes as follows:-

That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.

My own preferred definition is that atheism is 'denial of the existence of god'.  Statistically I think this definition is shared by a large number of people who call themselves atheists - that's just an opinion, I have no sources other than my intuition and a general feeling, but I think intuitively most of you would agree with me on your most honest level: there are a large number of people who call themselves atheists who share this definition.  If you disagree, feel free to say so.  

Despite this large number, I think an even larger number of people who call themselves atheists would agree with the definition that atheism means, "disbelief in god".  I suspect this latter contingent of atheists (the largest number) are mostly empiricists - people who need independent evidence to establish a thing called the truth.  Logically such empiricists would also need independent evidence of most things - such as, for example, the definition of a word.  An individual's opinion wouldn't be enough for them in my view.  Mostly they have such opposition to the idea that the individual is actually free, that they would prefer to spend their time exhausting a great deal of time in laborious demonstrations of the dire consequences of chaos and confusion that would prevail if humans exercised their freedom.  They are free to do this as well, I suppose.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Words have meanings.  If you choose to use unconventional meanings for words, that is fine.  But when people don't understand you, don't complain.

The responsibility for clarity lies with the speaker or writer.  If you wish to reach the widest audience, you will use common meanings.  

It's really very simple.

[Existentialist]

Words have meanings.  If you choose to use unconventional meanings for words, that is fine.  But when people don't understand you, don't complain.

The responsibility for clarity lies with the speaker or writer.  If you wish to reach the widest audience, you will use common meanings.  

It's really very simple.

'Simple' - thanks Thumpalumpacas, welcome to the thread.  If you've been following this thread you'll realise that I get a euro for every time someone tries to claim that something is 'simple'.  The payoff is that I get to buy you all a drink when I've saved up enough - so you won't have long to wait!

Clarity is a concept people achieve voluntarily, I think.  If two people - a writer and a reader - embark on the quest for clarity I think they both need to make an effort to achieve it.  I don't really see that any or all responsibility that automatically falls on one or the other, though they may separately or both choose to accept it.  Alternatively responsibility could actually be forced on either of them by others, such as at school, or on employees of an advertising agency, or a debating society where the chair is extremely heavy-handed.   It all depends.

I have only used common meanings in this thread.  Others haven't - they're the ones who use of uncommon, individually-invented meanings, and who are opposed to the use of uncommon, individually-invented meanings.

It's really not very simple!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Words have meanings.  If you choose to use unconventional meanings for words, that is fine.  But when people don't understand you, don't complain.

The responsibility for clarity lies with the speaker or writer.  If you wish to reach the widest audience, you will use common meanings.  

It's really very simple.

'Simple' - thanks Thumpalumpacas, welcome to the thread.  If you've been following this thread you'll realise that I get a euro for every time someone tries to claim that something is 'simple'.  The payoff is that I get to buy you all a drink when I've saved up enough - so you won't have long to wait!

Clarity is a concept people achieve voluntarily, I think.  If two people - a writer and a reader - embark on the quest for clarity I think they both need to make an effort to achieve it.  I don't really see that any or all responsibility that automatically falls on one or the other, though they may separately or both choose to accept it.  Alternatively responsibility could actually be forced on either of them by others, such as at school, or on employees of an advertising agency, or a debating society where the chair is extremely heavy-handed.   It all depends.

I have only used common meanings in this thread.  Others haven't - they're the ones who use of uncommon, individually-invented meanings, and who are opposed to the use of uncommon, individually-invented meanings.

It's really not very simple!

Actually, it is very simple:  if you wish to be understood, use the language of your audience correctly.

Te no puede comprende esta pensamiento por que yo escritir in Español, aunque te hablar la idioma.

That is not your language.

You're right that translating and comprehending is the listener's job, but if the speaker wish to change minds, he must first speak to those minds in a language that they can understand.  Using unconventional definitions hampers this task.  At the end of the day, such a speaker has no right to complain when he finds that his audience has moved on to other, more rewarding conversations.

[hackenslash]

Actually, it is very simple:  if you wish to be understood, use the language of your audience correctly.

Te no puede comprende esta pensamiento por que yo escritir in Español, aunque te hablar la idioma.

That is not your language.

You're right that translating and comprehending is the listener's job, but if the speaker wish to change minds, he must first speak to those minds in a language that they can understand.  Using unconventional definitions hampers this task.  At the end of the day, such a speaker has no right to complain when he finds that his audience has moved on to other, more rewarding conversations.

Beautifully put. If the Orson had any weight in this place I would award one.

Fuck it, I'll award one anyway>

[Existentialist]

Actually, it is very simple:  if you wish to be understood, use the language of your audience correctly.

Te no puede comprende esta pensamiento por que yo escritir in Español, aunque te hablar la idioma.

That is not your language.

You're right that translating and comprehending is the listener's job, but if the speaker wish to change minds, he must first speak to those minds in a language that they can understand.  Using unconventional definitions hampers this task.  At the end of the day, such a speaker has no right to complain when he finds that his audience has moved on to other, more rewarding conversations.

Thanks Thumpalumpacus.  I read your sentence which wasn't in my language and if I'm not too much mistaken I think your meaning is, "I need to contrive a sentence to ridicule Existentialist's support of freedom of speech and in particular his proposition that people are free to make up whatever meanings they want for the words they choose."  This may not be your surface meaning, which I don't have time to interpret (sorry), so I have read between the lines, however I think I have interpreted your words reasonably faithfully to find an approximation of your underlying meaning. The challenge really wasn't that hard.

I think you will find also that I was arguing that if people were going to use less commonly agreed words or meanings, the conversation would benefit from those people explaining their definitions first, although if you also did this, I think my interpretation of your meaning would still be the same.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thanks Thumpalumpacus.  I read your sentence which wasn't in my language and if I'm not too much mistaken I think your meaning is, "I need to contrive a sentence to ridicule Existentialist's support of freedom of speech and in particular his proposition that people are free to make up whatever meanings they want for the words they choose."

Actually, that isn't what it means, which makes this a wonderful opportunity for pushing my point home.  What I wrote, in Spanish, was "You cannot understand this thought because I'm writing it in Spanish, unless you can speak the language."  It really has nothing to do with ridiculing you.

This may not be your surface meaning, which I don't have time to interpret (sorry), so I have read between the lines, however I think I have interpreted your words reasonably faithfully to find an approximation of your underlying meaning. The challenge really wasn't that hard.

Hmm, you seem to have this as a stock answer, then?  Very well.  I'll move on to other, more rewarding conversations.  Sorry to have put a burr unedr your saddle.

I think you will find also that I was arguing that if people were going to use less commonly agreed words or meanings, the conversation would benefit from those people explaining their definitions first, although if you also did this, I think my interpretation of your meaning would still be the same.

So in other words, your methodology works, except when it doesn't work.  I see.

Hey, PM me if you wish to take this up as a serious discussion.  Otherwise, I'll leave you to your sparring here.  Have a beautiful day.

eta:  That really means "have a beautiful day."

[hackenslash]

[Existentialist]

Actually, that isn't what it means, which makes this a wonderful opportunity for pushing my point home.  What I wrote, in Spanish, was "You cannot understand this thought because I'm writing it in Spanish, unless you can speak the language."  It really has nothing to do with ridiculing you.

I see - you actually wanted me to take the sentence at face value?  I thought a better thing to do was to take a guess at your underlying meaning in posting it.  Sorry if I had got this underlying meaning slightly wrong - reading between the lines is an inexact science, but as I alluded to earlier, I think I got the general gist!

If you'd said you wanted me to translate it into English, I'd have copied and pasted it into Translate!

Enjoy your other conversations.  Nobody's compelled to participate in this one!

[Existentialist]

Oh, hi again hackenslash.  Thanks for the picture.   The topic is atheism.  I was just discussing Davin's definition - 'the absence of theism'.  I seem to have spent quite a bit of time outlining my rationale on why 'denial of the existence of god' is also a legitimate definition in its own right.  

Have you got anything to say - on topic?