I see no value in atheism

[leibowde84]

Is nonsense. Artie, and immortal flame, all they do is misrepresent me that I say as fact what is good and evil. That is their argument, all of it.

And what you do for in stance, is change that example of the rock, that it isn't true anymore that there are several possible results.

It's all nonsense, you all have no argumentation whatsoever. You all have no ready to go understanding of subjectivity, which is why you have to reference a dictionary for all the terms, because you have no practical understanding of it of your own.

We all have to agree upon the meanings of terms in order to have a productive discussion. And a dictionary is the best objective way to agree upon the meaning of terms. Thus, I think you are yet again making a false assumption about my subjective intent, as it makes perfect sense to use a dictionary to find agreement on the meaning of terms. If you would like to use different meanings, you have the responsibility to provide the new definitions. Otherwise how can one be expected to know? But, I think it is reasonable to use the dictionary as a default.

 

[Willamena]

We all have to agree upon the meanings of terms in order to have a productive discussion. And a dictionary is the best objective way to agree upon the meaning of terms.

But not the best way. The best way to come to terms is to listen to what other people are saying.

 

[leibowde84]

But not the best way. The best way to come to terms is to listen to what other people are saying.

Why? Doesn't that lead to more confusion, as many people might hold different meanings? Might work with one other person, but what about larger groups? How is consensus in meaning achieved?

 

[Willamena]

Why? Doesn't that lead to more confusion, as many people might hold different meanings? Might work with one other person, but what about larger groups? How is consensus in meaning achieved?

Because what they are saying is what matters, or should.

Consus in meaning is convention of meaning.

 

[Curious George]

But could you not "choose" good?


But you can also hold a belief while still possessing doubt about it.


That depends entirely on the belief. Not all beliefs require faith to believe. Faith is a particular way of reaching a belief, just as skepticism is a particular way of withholding a belief. Not all beliefs require a lack of doubt (even faith-based beliefs).


But skepticism is more specifically the withholding of a belief until it is sufficiently demonstrated to be true, while doubt is simply the acknowledgement of uncertainty. Again, you can believe something - even on faith - and still doubt it. You can believe a claim without necessarily believing that there is no possibility of it being wrong. Faith is about believing a claim in spite of an absence of evidence or a presence of evidence to the contrary, while skepticism is about withholding belief in a claim until there is evidence or as a result of of evidence to the contrary. They are much more direct opposites than doubt and faith are.

Yes, yes... If you can hold a belief while still doubting that belief, then you can also hold a belief while remaining skeptic about it.

Skepticism is doubting...you are trying to apply distuish the two, but if you are skeptic you have doubt. Skepticism however is more of a perspective, whereas doubt and faith are not necessarily. Thus, doubt is the better opposite of faith.

 

[leibowde84]

Because what they are saying is what matters, or should.

Consus in meaning is convention of meaning.

You are dodging my question though. I am asking how can billions of people communicate simultaneously using the same word without any consensus in meaning that extends to everyone? Under your logic words would lose all meaning, as every conversation could potentially use different meanings for the same word and not one would be correct.

 

[Willamena]

You are dodging my question though.

Obviously each person holds a meaning and obviously we somehow manage to understand each other. Yes, there is occasion for confusion, but that's what semantics is for. No clue about why it should be different in large groups (such as a culture or society). And "consensus achieved" is convention achieved: you've misnamed it.

I am asking how can billions of people communicate simultaneously using the same word without any consensus in meaning that extends to everyone? Under your logic words would lose all meaning, as every conversation could potentially use different meanings for the same word and not one would be correct.

Okay, first off, billions of people do not communicate simultaneously. They usually take turns at talking, and its rarely billions of them trying to communicate at once, and even more rarely with the same word, especially considering the number of languages there are. And secondly, I knew what you meant to say, although it was funny.

People do not fail to form their OWN relationships with the world, and that includes the linguistic relationship. We have cultural, familial and social vernaculars, but we also have unique, individual vernaculars. No two people will approach understanding a word with the same background, the same mentality formed of memory, the same history of experiences, the same social environment, and the same attitude. One person can even approach understanding a word from different places in their single lifetime.

Under "my logic," words are only meaningful. Words cannot lose any meaning, because all they are is meaning, and that meaning is whatever I intend to say. It's all about what I intend to say, and the words I choose to say it with are secondary. In learning the language proper we employ the logic by which the very words came about. It's not always logical, because it had it's own logic born of convention--that is, how people used the word, and how it evolved in use.

 

[leibowde84]

Obviously each person holds a meaning and obviously we somehow manage to understand each other. Yes, there is occasion for confusion, but that's what semantics is for. No clue about why it should be different in large groups (such as a culture or society). And "consensus achieved" is convention achieved: you've misnamed it.


Okay, first off, billions of people do not communicate simultaneously. They usually take turns at talking, and its rarely billions of them trying to communicate at once, and even more rarely with the same word, especially considering the number of languages there are. And secondly, I knew what you meant to say, although it was funny.

People do not fail to form their OWN relationships with the world, and that includes the linguistic relationship. We have cultural, familial and social vernaculars, but we also have unique, individual vernaculars. No two people will approach understanding a word with the same background, the same mentality formed of memory, the same history of experiences, the same social environment, and the same attitude. One person can even approach understanding a word from different places in their single lifetime.

Under "my logic," words are only meaningful. Words cannot lose any meaning, because all they are is meaning, and that meaning is whatever I intend to say. It's all about what I intend to say, and the words I choose to say it with are secondary. In learning the language proper we employ the logic by which the very words came about. It's not always logical, because it has it's own logic born of convention--that is, how people used the word, and how it evolved in use.

Can we take this one point at a time? "Concensus" is general agreement. So how is the general agreement on the meaning of a term, materialized as a dictionary definition, not concensus? Take into account that the dictionary definitions are not random or taken from one person's mind. It is arrived at by a concensus of many linguistic/semantic scholars who strive for the most accurate meaning of a word in relation to how it has been and is used in the English language. I feel like you are disregarding the importance of agreed upon definitions, especially when thinking of those learning English as a second language. Why should we make things more complicated for them? Simply because one doesn't agree with scholarly linguistic concensus? I mean, does concensus even exist, or do you define that term differently as well? One thing that you cannot reasonably deny is that a dictionary definition is based on a "concensus" between the best in the linguistic "biz". Or is that a false assumption? Is the basis of your argument really that the authors of dictionary definitions are bad at their job?

 

[Willamena]

Can we take this one point at a time? "Concensus" is general agreement. So how is the general agreement on the meaning of a term, materialized as a dictionary definition, not concensus?

The dictionary isn't the general agreement. Dictionaries offer up conventional usages, not popular ones. That's what they're for. It's all about word usage.

Reading 1: How Dictionaries Are Made?

Take into account that the dictionary definitions are not random or taken from one person's mind. It is arrived at by a concensus of many linguistic/semantic scholars who strive for the most accurate meaning of a word in relation to how it has been and is used in the English language.

Right. How words are used.

Dictionaries are tools of pragmatic language.

I feel like you are disregarding the importance of agreed upon definitions, especially when thinking of those learning English as a second language. Why should we make things more complicated for them? Simply because one doesn't agree with scholarly linguistic concensus?

I don't think there are any "agreed upon" definitions, just those that are conventionally useful. Conventions evolve as societies and civilizations evolve. It doesn't make things more complicated--don't know why it should.

I mean, does concensus even exist, or do you define that term differently as well? One thing that you cannot reasonably deny is that a dictionary definition is based on a "concensus" between the best in the linguistic "biz".

Consensus exists--it's a word in the dictionary because it's a useful word. But dictionaries display convention, not consensus--a tool of pragmatism, not popularity. I don't define things per the dictionary, I define things and then check the dictionary to see if I'm using the word in a conventional way.

I most often am.

 

[Willamena]

There is no body who assembled to "agree upon" what words shall mean. Rather, they acquire meaning through usage that is passed on to others through usage, and evolves through usage.

 

[Willamena]

"The writing of a dictionary, therefore, is not a task of setting up authoritative statements about the "true meanings" of words, but a task of recording, to the best of one's ability, what various words have meant to authors in the distant or immediate past."
Reading 1: How Dictionaries Are Made?

 

[leibowde84]

The dictionary isn't the general agreement. Dictionaries offer up conventional usages, not popular ones. That's what they're for. It's all about word usage.

Reading 1: How Dictionaries Are Made?


Right. How words are used.

Dictionaries are tools of pragmatic language.


I don't think there are any "agreed upon" definitions, just those that are conventionally useful. Conventions evolve as societies and civilizations evolve. It doesn't make things more complicated--don't know why it should.


Consensus exists--it's a word in the dictionary because it's a useful word. But dictionaries display convention, not consensus--a tool of pragmatism, not popularity. I don't define things per the dictionary, I define things and then check the dictionary to see if I'm using the word in a conventional way.

I most often am.

I got it. Fair enough. Maybe I'm just not as brave as you linguistically. Its kind of endearing to be completely honest with you.

 

[leibowde84]

There is no body who assembled to "agree upon" what words shall mean. Rather, they acquire meaning through usage that is passed on to others through usage, and evolves through usage.

I see what you are saying now. Sorry it took so long for me to understand. very interesting concept and an argument well established. Appreciate your patience.

I can't say I agree that this applies to the issue at hand, as I think that debate forums have to include certain boundaries in this area, but that, imho, is more of a subjective opinion on my part. I cannot honestly say that I have looked at terms in that way in the past.

 

[leibowde84]

"The writing of a dictionary, therefore, is not a task of setting up authoritative statements about the "true meanings" of words, but a task of recording, to the best of one's ability, what various words have meant to authors in the distant or immediate past."
Reading 1: How Dictionaries Are Made?

But we are talking about a debate forum where many contributors are using translation apps and/or speaking English as a second language. Don't you at least partly feel that a bit of linguistic reliability would benefit everyone. one thing that I love about this forum is the demand for adherence to the forum rules.

 

[Willamena]

I see what you are saying now. Sorry it took so long for me to understand. very interesting concept and an argument well established. Appreciate your patience.

Equivalent of Big Hugs!

I can't say I agree that this applies to the issue at hand, as I think that debate forums have to include certain boundaries in this area, but that, imho, is more of a subjective opinion on my part. I cannot honestly say that I have looked at terms in that way in the past.

And I think that debate forums have to include semantics.

Either/or.

 

[Willamena]

But we are talking about a debate forum where many contributors are using translation apps and/or speaking English as a second language. Don't you at least partly feel that a bit of linguistic reliability would benefit everyone. one thing that I love about this forum is the demand for adherence to the forum rules.

Depends on whose reality is the "linguistic" reality, no?

(i.e. none)

 

[Shad]

My opinion about how I feel about ice cream or what I think about ice cream is a statement about me. Even in hallucination, there is still a me.

An incorrectly phrased statement, but that does not matter to you as hallucinations and reality are treated as the same which is illogical.

And what of validity in the common vernacular outside of logic?

Which is of no use to me as you will be required to provide the system which shows how it is valid. Merely calling it valid is useless.

Opinion is often irrational, so to hold its contents to logic makes no sense?

Which goes against the point of validity. All your have done is concede your point after X amount of posts.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You are the one who resorts to personal comments, evasion and lies in order to make a point. Clearly, it is you who has no argument. If you cannot answer a simple question, then you don't even have a position either. Your logic is transparently nonsensical.

You have no argumentation. You are just another one who rejects subjectivity altogether.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

We all have to agree upon the meanings of terms in order to have a productive discussion. And a dictionary is the best objective way to agree upon the meaning of terms. Thus, I think you are yet again making a false assumption about my subjective intent, as it makes perfect sense to use a dictionary to find agreement on the meaning of terms. If you would like to use different meanings, you have the responsibility to provide the new definitions. Otherwise how can one be expected to know? But, I think it is reasonable to use the dictionary as a default.

You found another nonsense side-issue to make nonsense argument about, so that you can avoid my argumentation which plainly shows that you reject subjectivity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No they dont. You merely make false assumptions about people's comments. You have to work on actually paying attention to what people say instead of making false correlations, judging some for the beliefs of others. Just like not all Muslims are the same, neither are atheists, Christians, Liberals, materialists, determinists, etc. Everyone is different, so it is foolish to judge one by the comments of others who share beliefs that may or may not be relevant.

I don't make false assumptions when Artie says as fact that raping little girls to death is evil. He says it is fact, and you all run in support of each other, to avoid the procedure of reaching a conclusion by choosing it.