The god semantics language of argument

[Cacotopia]

Another point is, it's the religious forums. That gives a bit of an expectation that you know a bit more about things you're arguing against.

I didn't make the thread, i am merely arguing against the sometimes annoying nature at which people argue, atheists more so than others. Yes certainly there should be a baseline of understanding, but I think it is a lesson no one seems to learn.

Almost never does a poster define the terms from their perspective. doesn't matter what the topic is, it's almost never done, I know that was redundant, but maybe the reiteration is required.

"god" is so loosely defined. I don't think there is a single member that would define god in their own terms exactly as another poster, be them a believer or not.

 

[Misunderstood]

I think that it is a fair question. If a question is asked, you may not get the answer you want, or the question may not be perceived answerable as asked and those asked may feel it needs to be refined.

As already stated there are a lot of gods, and many definitions of those gods. So a god has been said to be anything that someone has given their life over to, like Money, Drugs, Alcohol, Sex, Etc. I think I could prove that people have given their lives to these things.

Not to prove God, but to show why it is important to define who you are talking about is Santa Clause. You may ask for me to prove Santa Clause. I could prove Saint Nicolas quite easily. Now the one that delivers presents on Christmas may be harder. But I could say every parent , or person presenting a present is a Santa Clause. Or that the Santa Clause that lives at the North Pole lives in the hearts of every child that believes in him.

That makes him exist in all those who believe in him as real to them as the North Pole it self (most people have not seen that either). Or, how about the love that a person has for another, no one can prove that either, but every Lover who has fell in love knows it to be real, and all it is, is a feeling. Those who believe in a god believe it to be as real as life itself.

 

[Jumi]

I didn't make the thread, i am merely arguing against the sometimes annoying nature at which people argue, atheists more so than others. Yes certainly there should be a baseline of understanding, but I think it is a lesson no one seems to learn.

It's the same thing if someone makes a thread "prove that god doesn't exist". It's lazy and tries to make people run around. If some progress is made it will turn into a gotcha where suddenly the maker of the thread doesn't accept your definitions and accuses you of not being a mindreader.

"god" is so loosely defined. I don't think there is a single member that would define god in their own terms exactly as another poster, be them a believer or not.

Even when there is agreement there is preference for terms. What I prefer to call nothingness or void is unity and oneness to someone else.

Not that it's just "religious" topics.

 

[lukethethird]

Why.

OK, you got me there.

 

[Willamena]

Very nitpicky to be honest. The god is not real prove me wrong thread? Lot of questions of which god.....when in the OP the god was not specified, but because not a specific one is listed or a <(s)> was not tacked on the end, people have to drag you through a harangue of useless questions trying to figure out which one they are talking about.

I find it is an irrelevant question if he is an atheist why would he be arguing for a specific god? Granted arguing the existence of god to me is a fruitless endeavor because it can neither be proven nor disproven. But I can read with a grain of salt, why can't some of you? No no no no no I must be told specifically what question I* want to read.

No one has the time of day to write every single god's name down in history. And a huge chunk of them have been lost to history. Can you name 6000+ plus gods? Do you even know all the names? and how long you think it would take to type them all down?? It's a waste of time. God(s) aren't real, don't ask me which god, ****in' all of them.

I find that the best answer to the question, "Which God?" is usually, "God." It's unlikely that they are actually unfamiliar with the general context, but are (as you say) nitpicking to avoid answering.

 

[Willamena]

My question is, if I understood, how can an atheist argue about a general definition of god when there is no god?

Without a general context for the word "god," you could not even ask such a question (or be understood).

An atheist is capable of asking about god in a general context.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Without a general context for the word "god," you could not even ask such a question (or be understood).

An atheist is capable of asking about god in a general context.

What would be the context?

I can talk about delalani, but it won't mean anything unless there is some context to which this foreign word applies

 

[blü 2]

Very nitpicky to be honest. The god is not real prove me wrong thread? Lot of questions of which god.....when in the OP the god was not specified, but because not a specific one is listed or a <(s)> was not tacked on the end, people have to drag you through a harangue of useless questions trying to figure out which one they are talking about.

I find it is an irrelevant question if he is an atheist why would he be arguing for a specific god? Granted arguing the existence of god to me is a fruitless endeavor because it can neither be proven nor disproven. But I can read with a grain of salt, why can't some of you? No no no no no I must be told specifically what question I* want to read.

No one has the time of day to write every single god's name down in history. And a huge chunk of them have been lost to history. Can you name 6000+ plus gods? Do you even know all the names? and how long you think it would take to type them all down?? It's a waste of time. God(s) aren't real, don't ask me which god, ****in' all of them.

Seems to me that the world behaves exactly as if gods existed nowhere but in the imagination of individual humans.

Imaginary gods, of course, can be anything the imaginer wants. They don't have definitions as a rule, just imaginary qualities eg omnipotence and making universes.

As for real gods, no one has a definition of a real god, such that we could tell whether any suspect were indeed a real god or not.

And it doesn't seem to bother anyone that we don't.

 

[Quintessence]

Well, this sure sounds like a thinly-veiled call out. The chosen approach is not appreciated; one could ask the folks who inquire what the purpose is behind such questions. The purpose varies. Sometimes, as @Sir Doom said, it's rhetorical.

In my case, though, I typically ask the questions because they are genuinely important to framing the scope of the discussion. In proper argumentation, one has to establish what the premises are, clearly define one's terms, and then present reasoning that supports a particular conclusion given those premises and terms. Logical argumentation is "nitpicky" (precise would be a better word to use, IMO). Using different premises or terms changes how an argumentation follows, and it is important to establish the intended scope. A discussion about the god of the Bible will look different than a discussion that includes autotheism, for example.

With respect to the "prove it" crowd, they are sometimes disingenuous, unfortunately. They don't establish the premises and terms because they aren't really interested in proper argumentation; they're in it more for the righteous ego trip or preaching than broader discussion of philosophy or religion. I don't like assuming someone is disingenuous though, so I ask clarifying questions. The responses to them tell me pretty quickly what sort of discussion they're interested in having... and whether or not it's one I want to (or an able to) participate in. If someone wants to focus their "prove it" discussion around classical monotheism that's completely fine, but it does mean I'm ill-suited for that discussion and will take my leave, for example.

 

[Willamena]

What would be the context?

I can talk about delalani, but it won't mean anything unless there is some context to which this foreign word applies

"General" is the context.

If we were at the supermarket and I asked you to point out the apples, you would point to the apple stand. It may contain either of red apples, green apples, Fuji apples, Red Delicious... but which apple does not matter. I am perfectly capable of understanding "apples" in the general context, and so are you.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"General" is the context.

If we were at the supermarket and I asked you to point out the apples, you would point to the apple stand. It may contain either of red apples, green apples, Fuji apples, Red Delicious... but which apple does not matter. I am perfectly capable of understanding "apples" in the general context, and so are you.

That is, the apples exist. God does not. You can talk about the concept or idea of god. However, still, you need to specify the gods you speak of in order for the conversation to make sense.

If we went to the supermarket and I told you to buy fruit, you can pick anything. However if I know I like specific fruits I want, I will mention that fruit. We can talk about fruit all day long, but in gods case, each god has specific unique things (like apples and oranges) that differientiate them from one another. So, talking about gods need to be specific.

At least to many of us who do not know what a god is outside the context (culture, books, etc) to which it's written. It must be specific.

 

[Segev Moran]

the existence of god to me is a fruitless endeavor because it can neither be proven nor disproven.

When I say god i mean The god, one, above all, nothing beyond it.
You are mistaken with your assumption that god cannot be proven.
There is a problem however. the only way someone can really have a proof god exist, is by understanding what is the evidence.
the only way you can "see" the evidence is to feel it.
The only way to feel it, is to genuinely study it in depth.

There is a good way and a bad way to learn about god.
Which is which is only up to you to determine. but the main thing to remember is that if the way you learn about god hurts anyone else in any way, it is undoubtedly the wrong way.

If you'll start learning (not by becoming religious!) and start from the beginning you will start understanding how obvious it is that god is a reality.

Its not about finding the right answers.
Its not about asking the right questions.
Its about understanding the language.

Science, without even "knowing", describes god.

 

[sealchan]

I think that an atheist has, at the very least, a notion of what God is such that they can determine that such an idea is without any physical consequence. I also think that an atheist who enjoys the debate on the reality or nature of God has taken an interest in some believer's conceptions enough to consider and rebut them.

It is behooven on the believer who also agreeably enters the debate to "flesh out" for the atheist what they mean by God as the atheist is not so duly inspired to come up with a definition. However, the atheist who wishes to rationally discuss is, no doubt, clarifying his or her own understanding of just what it is that they are claiming doesn't exist.

 

[Willamena]

That is, the apples exist. God does not. You can talk about the concept or idea of god. However, still, you need to specify the gods you speak of in order for the conversation to make sense.

If we went to the supermarket and I told you to buy fruit, you can pick anything. However if I know I like specific fruits I want, I will mention that fruit. We can talk about fruit all day long, but in gods case, each god has specific unique things (like apples and oranges) that differientiate them from one another. So, talking about gods need to be specific.

At least to many of us who do not know what a god is outside the context (culture, books, etc) to which it's written. It must be specific.

That god doesn't exist doesn't prevent us from referring to god, or concepts of god, in the general case. Neither does it deter us.

 

[Sir Doom]

I must say, I responded to the thread in question the way I did specifically to avoid the canned debate about the nature of God. I preferred to concede to whatever definition they may have and demonstrated the folly of their position regardless of what the specific definition happens to be.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That god doesn't exist doesn't prevent us from referring to god, or concepts of god, in the general case. Neither does it deter us.

Since god doesn't exist, how can you converse about it without describing the specific context and definition to which that word is defined?

What does god mean in general for all people to be on the same page when using the word in a conversation?

 

[Willamena]

Since god doesn't exist, how can you converse about it without describing the specific context and definition to which that word is defined?

What does god mean in general for all people to be on the same page when using the word in a conversation?

"Definition to which a word is defined" doesn't make sense.

God, in general, means a being that is supreme and supernatural.

Which being doesn't matter.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"Definition to which a word is defined" doesn't make sense.

God, in general, means a being that is supreme and supernatural.

Which being doesn't matter.

Not all goes are supernatural (please don't quote the dictionary). Not all gods are deities. Not all are creators.

So, if you are having a general conversation about god it can be Pagan, Abrahamics (Muslim and Jew), incarnation (Christian and Hindu), deity (Zues or Apollo), spirit (energy or force of life or worshiped ancestor), nature, and so forth.

Just talking about god doesn't tell me what you mean by god, is it a force, a deity, a being, an essence, the nature of an object or person, a Casper like being of some sort.

And you must have some sort of definition that everyone agrees on in a conversation where people all around the world can comment. It's a conversation ethic. I don't know about other countries and conversation ethics. It does differ.

The only other language I know is specific is ASL. But English has a lot of idioms so, like any language, if you don't have more than a general idea of what you guys talk about, linguistically it's fine, but using it in a conversation would cause confusion and assumptions where being specific can eliminate.

 

[Willamena]

Not all goes are supernatural (please don't quote the dictionary). Not all gods are deities. Not all are creators.

So, if you are having a general conversation about god it can be Pagan, Abrahamics (Muslim and Jew), incarnation (Christian and Hindu), deity (Zues or Apollo), spirit (energy or force of life or worshiped ancestor), nature, and so forth.

Just talking about god doesn't tell me what you mean by god, is it a force, a deity, a being, an essence, the nature of an object or person, a Casper like being of some sort.

And you must have some sort of definition that everyone agrees on in a conversation where people all around the world can comment. It's a conversation ethic. I don't know about other countries and conversation ethics. It does differ.

The only other language I know is specific is ASL. But English has a lot of idioms so, like any language, if you don't have more than a general idea of what you guys talk about, linguistically it's fine, but using it in a conversation would cause confusion and assumptions where being specific can eliminate.

It's debatable that not all gods are supernatural, deities, creators, etc. But it is possible to discuss god in the general context regardless of any of its characteristics, just as one can discuss apples regardless that they are not all Red Delicious. The general context is purposefully and significantly vague.

I fully agree that one should know of what one speaks if one is to address particulars, but it's also true that one can refer to the general case and speak meaningfully.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's debatable that not all gods are supernatural, deities, creators, etc. But it is possible to discuss god in the general context regardless of any of its characteristics, just as one can discuss apples regardless that they are not all Red Delicious. The general context is purposefully and significantly vague.

I fully agree that one should know of what one speaks if one is to address particulars, but it's also true that one can refer to the general case and speak meaningfully.

To me, its like talking in pronouns but never defining what the pronouns represent. Of course you can have a general conversation using he, she, and it. I just see it empty without at least the basics.

For example, if I go to a country where christiasn never colonized and the residents believed in Hindu gods, we may use the term god to be on the same level, however, (as I witnessed on RF unfortunately), when you are just talking about general stuff, the conversation isnt meaninful. Its empty, rather.

If both sides explained their gods, one to open up a bit to differences, and the other explain more of the nature of their g od, then yeah, conversations would go better and be more meaningful. But just in general? Doesnt work with god and abstract concepts like love and hate. Personal experience