The default position...

[Bunyip]

Usually definitions are paramount to understanding what people believe and why.

Actually, no - not at all.
If you wanted to understand what a person believes - you would simply ask them. Arguing about word meanings is the alternative to understanding what people believe.

You can argue about the definition of 'atheism' for years, and get nowhere - because of course there IS NO SINGLE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED DEFINITION. But if you ask a person what they believe and worry less about labels then a productive exchange is possible.

Words are defined by their usage, there is no arbiter of definitions. There is no single correct definition, language does not work that way.

 

[Curious George]

Actually, no - not at all.
If you wanted to understand what a person believes - you would simply ask them. Arguing about word meanings is the alternative to understanding what people believe.

You can argue about the definition of 'atheism' for years, and get nowhere - because of course there IS NO SINGLE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED DEFINITION. But if you ask a person what they believe and worry less about labels then a productive exchange is possible.

Words are defined by their usage, there is no arbiter of definitions. There is no single correct definition, language does not work that way.

And if you do not understand the definition someone is using you will not understand what they believe let alone why.

 

[Bunyip]

And if you do not understand the definition someone is using you will not understand what they believe let alone why.

You will if you worry less about labels and just ask them what they believe. Understanding what a person believes can be far better accomplished by asking them about what they believe than by discussing which label to apply and what that label means.

As I said, it is the alternative to meaningful dialogue.

 

[Bunyip]

And if you do not understand the definition someone is using you will not understand what they believe let alone why.

What happens too often here is the fatuous process of trying to argue with a person that their definition is wrong, as if by pointing out that they are using the wrong definition (which of course is absurd, because there is no right definition) somehow invalidates their position. It is the last resort of those without evidence for their gods.

 

[Curious George]

You will if you worry less about labels and just ask them what they believe. Understanding what a person believes can be far better accomplished by asking them about what they believe than by discussing which label to apply and what that label means.

As I said, it is the alternative to meaningful dialogue.

Definitions are what someone believes.

 

[Bunyip]

Definitions are what someone believes.

Don't be ridiculous. Given that you are resorting to inventing a new definition of 'definitions', I think you have proven my point. Semantic wordplay seems all you are interested in, as opposed to genuine discussion.

 

[Curious George]

What happens too often here is the fatuous process of trying to argue with a person that their definition is wrong, as if by pointing out that they are using the wrong definition (which of course is absurd, because there is no right definition) somehow invalidates their position. It is the last resort of those without evidence for their gods.

Funny, I am arguing that what someone believes "an atheist is x" is wrong based on logic.

You realize that definitions are what we believe, right?

 

[Curious George]

Don't be ridiculous. Given that you are resorting to inventing a new definition of 'definitions', I think you have proven my point. Semantic wordplay seems all you are interested in, as opposed to genuine discussion.

No I am not inventing a new definition.

If I say God does not exist. I am defining God.

 

[Bunyip]

No I am not inventing a new definition.

If I say God does not exist. I am defining God.

LOL You invented the definition of 'definitions': 'Definitions are what someone believes'

Which is frankly laughably misguided. And sadly follow with an even more nonsensical claim; 'If I say God does not exist. I am defining God.'

George, your word games and delight in obfuscation are not really very interesting - take them up with somebody else please.

 

[Bunyip]

Funny, I am arguing that what someone believes "an atheist is x" is wrong based on logic.

You realize that definitions are what we believe, right?

You realise how ridiculous that statement is right? If not, think harder.

 

[Willamena]

LOL You invented the definition of 'definitions': 'Definitions are what someone believes'

Which is frankly laughably misguided. And sadly follow with an even more nonsensical claim; 'If I say God does not exist. I am defining God.'

George, your word games and delight in obfuscation are not really very interesting - take them up with somebody else please.

It's not an "invention," it's just "using the word" --as in:

Words are defined by their usage...

 

[Bunyip]

It's not an "invention," it's just "using the word" --as in:

I'm sure George would love to discuss it with you.

 

[Willamena]

I'm sure George would love to discuss it with you.

George and I agree too much for it to be an interesting conversation.

 

[Curious George]

LOL You invented the definition of 'definitions': 'Definitions are what someone believes'

Which is frankly laughably misguided. And sadly follow with an even more nonsensical claim; 'If I say God does not exist. I am defining God.'

George, your word games and delight in obfuscation are not really very interesting - take them up with somebody else please.

All one needs to do is let me know that they do not wish to discuss the subject. I can respect this. But regarding my "obfuscation:" That you do not understand does not mean it is not clear, let alone purposefully intended to not be clear. Rather it means you just don't get it. Whether that is by choice or by nature I cannot say. Originally I suspected the former, but I have been wrong before.

 

[Bunyip]

All one needs to do is let me know that they do not wish to discuss the subject. I can respect this. But regarding my "obfuscation:" That you do not understand does not mean it is not clear, let alone purposefully intended to not be clear. Rather it means you just don't get it. Whether that is by choice or by nature I cannot say. Originally I suspected the former, but I have been wrong before.

I believe that you have no interest in genuine discussion, but like a few others here are only interested in playing word games and pretending not to grasp simple points. As I said, there are plenty of others here who appear to delight in endless circular discussions about definitions - I am not one of them.

 

[Thief]

So...then it's decided...
The default position is based on ignorance.
Children escape the 'fault' and return to God....not having made denial.
Those having made denial....don't do so well.

All lines straight..

 

[Curious George]

I believe that you have no interest in genuine discussion, but like a few others here are only interested in playing word games and pretending not to grasp simple points. As I said, there are plenty of others here who appear to delight in endless circular discussions about definitions - I am not one of them.

I am sure that is easier for you to accept.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

So...then it's decided...
The default position is based on ignorance.
Children escape the 'fault' and return to God....not having made denial.
Those having made denial....don't do so well.

All lines straight..

Whatever makes you feel better.

 

[Bunyip]

I am sure that is easier for you to accept.

Indeed, better than assuming you are mad.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Of course all theists are atheist - they are theist towards whatever God or Gods

I like the "of course" followed by the use of "theist" as an adjective.

Of course you will pretend to be completely baffled by such a simple point.

Not at all. Your post is quite readable and easily understood. However, so is the statement "atheists are rocks". The problem isn't that what you are saying is complex, just that it is wrong. You demonstrate this not merely by ignoring usage and logic and so forth, but by statements like "all theists are atheists" based on the use of nouns as adjectives (and if that is too much of an argument by grammar, then simply consider it a way of pointing out that having defined theists as atheists and vice versa, you defend this contradiction by using words in ways they aren't used, not just to mean things they aren't used to mean).