The logical fallacy of atheism

[Awkward Fingers]

Again, you are misrepresenting the term Atheist. It makes it quite difficult to have a debate when folks cannot grasp simple definitions of words.

Atheism makes no absolute judgement on whether a god exists or not. It is nothing more than simple lack of belief. That's it. That's all it takes. Until this simple concept can be grasped, further dialect is pointless. You don't get to make up your own definition for words that already have clear cut definitions.

With how often this comes up, one might think that there may be a sticky or dir that addressed this, wouldn't one?

 

[RitalinOhD]

With how often this comes up, one might think that there may be a sticky or dir that addressed this, wouldn't one?

What kills me is Theists aren't the only ones who cannot seem to grasp it.

I don't know why it needs to be made more complicated than it really is.

 

[Ouroboros]

No one has agreed on a definition. All religions disagree, and people within religions disagree with each other. It has no definition because none has been shown to be acceptable or accurate, since you cannot know what is accurate. God is not a term since it has no agreed definition.

The string of letters I gave has meaning in a given context--like a context or definition I can arbitrarily make up for it.

I'm not arguing about the definition of the word "God," but about the definition of the word "term". A word is a word, but a term is a specific type of word. A term is a word that has a meaning in a context. You argue that God is a term that is not defined. That is a contradiction since term means that it is defined. You basically are saying: God is a term that is not a term. This is more of a grammar question than any specific use of the randomly picked word "God". We could just as well argue if the term "Blorghabog" or "Ostrich" are terms or not. Ostrich is. Blorghabog isn't, unless we give it a definition and meaning.

 

[Ouroboros]

Agreed; you can make up any word, that doesn't make it a term.

Correct.

I suspect this whole confusion comes from a misunderstanding of the term "term" itself.

 

[Ouroboros]

Not to me. I have no idea what God is. That's why we started this definition questionare in the first place.

Hang on here.

That might be totally true, that you, specifically you, have no idea what God is, regardless of context or discussion. So in whatever discussion you get into, you have no clue what people mean when they use the term God. Ok. Accepted.

But... you cannot claim that everyone else also have no clue what they're talking about. Anyone who uses the term God could have a specific idea, though, definition, etc for what they mean with the term God, even if you don't. That makes it a term, and a defined word, even if you're left out of it.

So in the end, God is a term, and a defined word, based on audience, authors, and context, even when you're not part of that context.

 

[Ouroboros]

I can't. However, if you use a term, you have employed its meaning, whether you like it or not.


Which is why you employ only a concept when you use the term in a sentence.



Your firm idea that they are a "fictional concept" is enough for a concept. The idea that god is something they cannot know is even firmer.

Yup.

If the term God is defined as having no exact definition, then that's a definition in itself.

 

[Ouroboros]

You keep saying that, but it does not actually make sense. It does not change the fact that unless you define the term it is meaningless.

The word "God" carries different meanings and definitions based on context.

If you're talking to a Southern Baptist, the image/definition of God is different than you talk to a pantheist. So, even if the definitions change, they change based on context, and an aware reader/audience can distinguish that correctly and partake in that context, but in doing so, there's some agreement on the term. Otherwise, we could just as well discuss this way:

8dfll AL asdlfku 399 cx90kj *90kd&@ JFkv..<:''<<!KJJGHH

(If you don't understand it, try to read backward... and it still won't make sense. )

 

[Ouroboros]

There's this word. Let's call it, "Ump." And on first hearing it, you may garner some meaning from the sentence it's used in; from the context it's used in; from the person who used it. But then it's used again, and again,. And over time, this image of it will build from usage and context.

If you turn that around and use it in a sentence, it's not meaningless, not in any sense, not unless you meant to say something meaningless. You keep proposing that it needs a particular, but it still gets used in a sentence coherently without a particular.

I say it doesn't lack meaning, no matter how you insist it does.

Also, if you make the sentence: "I'm going to give an example of a word without meaning: Ump." Now, I have actually given it a meaning and a context, and it's become a term. The safest way to do it without define is to xd 5dk *(9f 54kj5mm ... asj' '';';';234'.

 

[Ouroboros]

That isn't a rational case. You can't derive the meaning of a term from context alone.

We do. That's how we learn language to being with.

"Billy, are you thirsty? Do you want some milk."

If you don't know the words, how does the baby learn that he's Billy, that thirsty is a feeling, and that milk tastes good and solves the "thirst"? It's context, set in the actual scene of life itself.

Why are you so resistent to the idea of defining terms? It is something that people have to do in almost any discussion/debate/argumen or exchange.

I think it's the opposite. She's not resistant to define the terms. She's pointing out that the word God is a term, i.e has definition(s) depending on context.

 

[Ouroboros]

No. I am demonstrating that you are wrong - you can not figure out what a term means by context alone. And unless you have a definition for a word it has no meaning.

To ask "define this word I just invented drepliquit (or whatever)" is not to give context.

Context isn't just anything. Context is an environment where the use of a word has meaning. You gave an example of context-less environment for the word. You can't get the meaning from a non-context. It has to have context.

Simple as that. So give a context, then it can be derived.j

Or... here's a definition of the word "context"

the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

Hmm.... did you give it a setting where the idea of the term could be fully understood and assessed?

---edit

Actually, I'm going to correct myself a little there. You did give a context. The definition of the word you gave is that it has no meaning to you and lacks definition. That's the context, and that's the definition of it based on that context.

 

[Ouroboros]

And unless you define the concept it has no meaning.

A definition is a form of context. So context defines it by being a definition.

 

[serp777]

A fine concept, often used. Sounds to me like you know it, though.

Know what?

 

[serp777]

Hang on here.

That might be totally true, that you, specifically you, have no idea what God is, regardless of context or discussion. So in whatever discussion you get into, you have no clue what people mean when they use the term God. Ok. Accepted.

But... you cannot claim that everyone else also have no clue what they're talking about. Anyone who uses the term God could have a specific idea, though, definition, etc for what they mean with the term God, even if you don't. That makes it a term, and a defined word, even if you're left out of it.

So in the end, God is a term, and a defined word, based on audience, authors, and context, even when you're not part of that context.

Well if you're like me and accept that God is not definable/unknowable, then logically everyone else who says they know and can define God is wrong because they cannot know what they cannot know.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well if you're like me and accept that God is not definable/unknowable, then logically everyone else who says they know and can define God is wrong because they cannot know what they cannot know.

That's not what I was getting at.

I'm not sure if you have looked into what the term "term" means or paid attention to when I tried to explain it.

In a given context, that means, a certain, specific situation, for instance a discussion between person A of belief X and person B of belief X, the term "God" or the term "bathtub" or the term "banana peel" all have meanings. They're not meaningless just because an alien visiting Earth wouldn't understand them. A term is a term. God is a term when its used in a context. That's just how English works. Has nothing to do with the word "God" specifically, but all the words in this post. All of them have a meaning. They are all terms.

In one of the other threads you're talking about what God is and what God isn't in your view. You're not using the word God without any specification there. You are giving the word a context and meaning in those posts, as far as I can see. The meaning and definition might be different than the other person's, but you still are doing it. You are framing the meaning. And... that means you are using the word "God" as a term in that thread. That's what "term" means. To give and use a word with a specific meaning in a specific context. You are the framer of that word in that thread in your posts. So I can't understand why you're denying the word "God" to be a term, when you actually are using the word "God" as a term in that thread?

 

[serp777]

That's not what I was getting at.

I'm not sure if you have looked into what the term "term" means or paid attention to when I tried to explain it.

In a given context, that means, a certain, specific situation, for instance a discussion between person A of belief X and person B of belief X, the term "God" or the term "bathtub" or the term "banana peel" all have meanings. They're not meaningless just because an alien visiting Earth wouldn't understand them. A term is a term. God is a term when its used in a context. That's just how English works. Has nothing to do with the word "God" specifically, but all the words in this post. All of them have a meaning. They are all terms.

In one of the other threads you're talking about what God is and what God isn't in your view. You're not using the word God without any specification there. You are giving the word a context and meaning in those posts, as far as I can see. The meaning and definition might be different than the other person's, but you still are doing it. You are framing the meaning. And... that means you are using the word "God" as a term in that thread. That's what "term" means. To give and use a word with a specific meaning in a specific context. You are the framer of that word in that thread in your posts. So I can't understand why you're denying the word "God" to be a term, when you actually are using the word "God" as a term in that thread?

God" or the term "bathtub" or the term "banana peel" all have meanings.

This is a fallacious comparison. Everybody has accepted what a bathtub and banana peel are and it relates to a specific object that we can utilize. It is unknown what definition God would correspond to and therefore doesn't describe a known thing or concept. That goes against the definition of a term, since you seem to know this definition well.

To call God a term also means it is a thing or a concept, and it hasn't been shown to be either.

"a word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept, especially in a particular kind of language or branch of study."

They're not meaningless just because an alien visiting Earth wouldn't understand them.

It's not meaningful because a few humans happen to agree on a certain definition, while others agree on something entirely different. Many humans would argue that God can be defined as the infinite creator of the universe. Many would also disagree. Just because they can claim that they can define a term does not mean they have successfully defined the term or that it is accurate or that there is something we could even describe it with. It is unknown what the God, as a term, refers to therefore.

And I never say what God is.

So I can't understand why you're denying the word "God" to be a term, when you actually are using the word "God" as a term in that thread?

I can't understand why you're accepting the word God as a term when there is no universally agreed definition or concept that it refers to. And as i've argued that it makes no sense to try and define God or express a concept for it since you can't know the unknowable; it makes no sense to call it a term. It's more like a reference to that which has no established meaning or concept.

You are giving the word a context and meaning in those posts

If that's true, then simply tell me what context or meaning i'm referring to in order to prove me wrong. if you can show me that I'm referring to a particular concept or meaning then I have been using it as a term. I don't believe that I have been using a particular meaning or concept associated with it.

 

[Ouroboros]

I give up. Maybe you'll get what I'm trying to say some other day, but right now, I feel we're both talking about different things.

 

[Sonofason]

Again, you are misrepresenting the term Atheist. It makes it quite difficult to have a debate when folks cannot grasp simple definitions of words.

Atheism makes no absolute judgement on whether a god exists or not. It is nothing more than simple lack of belief. That's it. That's all it takes. Until this simple concept can be grasped, further dialect is pointless. You don't get to make up your own definition for words that already have clear cut definitions.

I'm sorry, I don't accept new definitions of the word atheist. An atheist is a person who has a belief that no God exists. You can make up your own definition however, if it makes you feel better. But don't expect me to acknowledge it. I won't. It is dishonest to do so. And I won't be dishonest.

 

[Bunyip]

A definition is a form of context. So context defines it by being a definition.

That makes no sense whatsoever. A definition is not a form of context.

 

[RitalinOhD]

I'm sorry, I don't accept new definitions of the word atheist. An atheist is a person who has a belief that no God exists. You can make up your own definition however, if it makes you feel better. But don't expect me to acknowledge it. I won't. It is dishonest to do so. And I won't be dishonest.

You do realize that you just said exactly what I've been saying right?

Lack of belief in a deity = Atheist

So, explain to me the thought process that led you to accuse me of "making up my own definition". I think it's been very clear that I have not made anything up.

And you say you wont be dishonest.

 

[Ouroboros]

That makes no sense whatsoever. A definition is not a form of context.

No, a context gives a definition.