Semantics

[♥Mark]

Lately a good chunk of the topics in this section have been about attempting to define what exactly qualifies one as an atheist, agnostic, theist, deist, whatever. Is this necessary or even useful?

[Serkat]

Lately a good chunk of the topics in this section have been about attempting to define what exactly qualifies one as an atheist, agnostic, theist, deist, whatever. Is this necessary or even useful? I wish it wasn't but with people just redefining every fucking word in the dictionary to suit their own agenda and to make it sound right, it is.

[Howie]

I wish it wasn't but with people just redefining every fucking word in the dictionary to suit their own agenda and to make it sound right, it is. That why there is all these religions. You don't like one or it does not fit your needs --- Just make a new one. Now that there is all these different derivatives from possibly one, it is nice to be well versed in them all. So I think it is helpful. Since it has to be this way.

[Xaqaria]

I wish it wasn't but with people just redefining every fucking word in the dictionary to suit their own agenda and to make it sound right, it is. I don't understand; aren't you the one who made an entire thread dedicated to doing just that?

[♥Mark]

But I bring this up because a lot of the time the format is: "Is X true?" "That's not what an atheist is." If X were a claim about what an athiest is, then that's fine, but the problem is that these things are coming up all over the place. Do we really need to keep playing the dictionary game in every thread, or can we not just focus more on the question of weather X is true or not?

[Taosaur]

But I bring this up because a lot of the time the format is: "Is X true?" "That's not what an atheist is." If X were a claim about what an athiest is, then that's fine, but the problem is that these things are coming up all over the place. Do we really need to keep playing the dictionary game in every thread, or can we not just focus more on the question of weather X is true or not? No.

[♥Mark]

ok

[Serkat]

I don't understand; aren't you the one who made an entire thread dedicated to doing just that? The origin of those definitions wasn't my anus as is the case with most New-Agers etc.

[Moonbeam]

Lately a good chunk of the topics in this section have been about attempting to define what exactly qualifies one as an atheist, agnostic, theist, deist, whatever. Is this necessary or even useful? Why is it so difficult? Question: "Do you believe in god?" Answers: "Yes" = theist. "No" = atheist. "I don't know, I don't care, I need to elaborate on the subject as to which way I tend to go, the question is meaningless, the question cannot be answered, etc." = agnostic. There. Simple, right?

[♥Mark]

Careful, Moonbeam, or we're going to end up having exactly that kind of arguments happening... Anyway, it's not even so much about how simple they are to define or not, it's just that it doesn't seem particularly useful to have these terms which seem to serve only to confuse things. Can't we just say "I believe in god" rather than "I am a theist"? These labels carry a lot of other connotations in people's minds which won't necessarily be descriptive of those that define themselves by those terms. But we can avoid playing that game if we just use specific terms to describe our beliefs. Also, instead of arguing against labels, we can focus on arguing against specific claims. That way we avoid unintentionally building straw men.

[Dreamworld]

Careful, Moonbeam, or we're going to end up having exactly that kind of arguments happening... Anyway, it's not even so much about how simple they are to define or not, it's just that it doesn't seem particularly useful to have these terms which seem to serve only to confuse things. Can't we just say "I believe in god" rather than "I am a theist"? These labels carry a lot of other connotations in people's minds which won't necessarily be descriptive of those that define themselves by those terms. But we can avoid playing that game if we just use specific terms to describe our beliefs. Also, instead of arguing against labels, we can focus on arguing against specific claims. That way we avoid unintentionally building straw men. He's a thesist, is alot easier than, He who believes in God. But we can avoid playing that game if we just use specific terms to describe our beliefs Lol.. You mean like the words theist, agnostic, and atheist? They are simple. Yes, no, maybe.

[♥Mark]

Lol.. You mean like the words theist, agnostic, and atheist? No, that's not what I mean. I don't mean inventing new labels to call ourselves by, I mean just plain spelling it out instead of saying "I am a ____". As I said, it's not about weather the terms are simple or not. These labels carry a lot of other connotations in people's minds which won't necessarily be descriptive of those that define themselves by those terms. But we can avoid playing that game if we just use specific terms to describe our beliefs. Also, instead of arguing against labels, we can focus on arguing against specific claims. That way we avoid unintentionally building straw men.

[Dreamworld]

No, that's not what I mean. I don't mean inventing new labels to call ourselves by, I mean just plain spelling it out instead of saying "I am a ____". As I said, it's not about weather the terms are simple or not. Well can you show me a thread which argues about the terms I listed..

[♥Mark]

No, go away.

[Taosaur]

The difficulty arises when people in any camp either claim qualities for themselves or foist qualities upon their opponents which are irrelevant to their positions (atheist/agnostic/theist, materialist/pragmatist/idealist, or whatever), rather than elucidate their own ideas on the topic at hand or try to find the true gestalt of others' views.

[Dreamworld]

Then there is not point for this thread.. Korittke's thread is the only one I can recall. I agree that thread was a waste, but thats just because the terms are so plain and simple.

[♥Mark]

Yes, there is. It's pretty obvious that this is happening. If you want to argue that it's not, make a new thread.

[Dreamworld]

Yes, there is. It's pretty obvious that this is happening. If you want to argue that it's not, make a new thread. Are you on your period? I can't see any, are the threads only on your computer screen?

[♥Mark]

Go away.

[Dreamworld]

Go away. I guess thats another way to say, I admit I made a mistake.

[♥Mark]

I guess thats another way to say, I admit I made a mistake. Let us continue this discussion here: http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...123#post788123

[Dreamworld]

Let us continue this discussion here: http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...123#post788123 I'm really not even arguing just stating what is obvious. Correct me if I'm wrong. Next time post a link of one of those threads you were talking about.

[Moonbeam]

Careful, Moonbeam, or we're going to end up having exactly that kind of arguments happening... No, I didn't want that, I just don't get why people have to make it so complicated. Anyway, it's not even so much about how simple they are to define or not, it's just that it doesn't seem particularly useful to have these terms which seem to serve only to confuse things. There are splitters and lumpers, I guess I am a lumper. Can't we just say "I believe in god" rather than "I am a theist"? These labels carry a lot of other connotations in people's minds which won't necessarily be descriptive of those that define themselves by those terms. But we can avoid playing that game if we just use specific terms to describe our beliefs. Also, instead of arguing against labels, we can focus on arguing against specific claims. That way we avoid unintentionally building straw men. I see what you are saying. I don't think it shouldn't be necessary to label yourself as a non-believer in any sort of fantasy, but for the time being, I guess we're stuck with it.

[♥Mark]

We will inevitably be stuck by other people with it, but we can always avoid sticking ourselves.

[Moonbeam]

Good point.