Language in the a/theist debate

[e2iPi]

I have noticed that definitions seem to pose a problem in the debate between atheists and theists. Each side has their own understanding of what a word means; and lets face it, language only works when all parties involved agree upon certain definitions. The most commonly (ab)used words from my perspective are "theory," "law," "evolution," "supernatural," and oddly enough "atheist." I am in the process of writing about this issue now, but I would like to get some input from The League.

So, what do you think? What words make you want to bang your (or someone else's) head against a wall when you see it (intentionally) misconstrued?

-1

 

[MRaverz]

Energy is a good one, people don't seem to understand that it's just the amount of work which can be performed by a force.

 

[borrofburi]

"random chance", "information"

 

[AndromedasWake]

"Singularity". It is not an object, its a region of undefined solutions. So few people actually understand this.

 

[Prolescum]

Mutation.

 

[nemesiss]

i think it already starts with the word "debate".

somehow i get the idea that people think it's about who wins, is right.


a better definition:
Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examines consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case or rhetoric which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.

 

[e2iPi]

Thanks for the input. Hopefully I can clear up some of the confusion for those who are not simply willfully ignorant of the issues. I'll post a link when I've got a bit more work done.

"Singularity". It is not an object, its a region of undefined solutions. So few people actually understand this.

Similar to my pet peeve, anything with "quantum" in it, especially in relation to the Uncertainty Principal. I've ranted on that particular issue more than a few times.

-1

 

[xman]

The equivocation of 'know' perturbs me greatly and the attempt to incorporate 'philosophy' into 'belief' equally.

 

[borrofburi]

The equivocation of 'know' perturbs me greatly and the attempt to incorporate 'philosophy' into 'belief' equally.

You mean like "I know what started the universe" and "I know god is real"?

 

[xman]

The equivocation of 'know' perturbs me greatly and the attempt to incorporate 'philosophy' into 'belief' equally.

You mean like "I know what started the universe" and "I know god is real"?

That's what I mean. :roll:

 

[borrofburi]

You mean like "I know what started the universe" and "I know god is real"?

That's what I mean. :roll:[/quote]

To be fair to them, the latter case of "I know god is real" isn't really an improper use of "know" in the sense that they are completely certain they have "felt god" and "have a personal relationship with god" and as such "know god is real"... It becomes difficult though. I would say they are foolish to say they "know" what started the universe, but merely honest when saying they "know god is real"; in the former case they are making completely unjustified claims about distant phenomena, while in the latter they are simply saying "I am certain I have felt god and therefore he is real"... Maybe it's an attempt at a distinction without merit though.

 

[Symbiosychotic]

"evolution" or "evolve"

 

[Aught3]

To be fair to them, the latter case of "I know god is real" isn't really an improper use of "know" in the sense that they are completely certain they have "felt god" and "have a personal relationship with god" and as such "know god is real"... It becomes difficult though. I would say they are foolish to say they "know" what started the universe, but merely honest when saying they "know god is real"; in the former case they are making completely unjustified claims about distant phenomena, while in the latter they are simply saying "I am certain I have felt god and therefore he is real"... Maybe it's an attempt at a distinction without merit though.

But knowing isn't about a strong feeling it's about justification and the truth of your beliefs. It's the mistake that people make when they say "no, I don't believe it, I know it."

 

[xman]

But knowing isn't about a strong feeling it's about justification and the truth of your beliefs. It's the mistake that people make when they say "no, I don't believe it, I know it."

Exactly, otherwise it's equivocation. It's a lie when one equates personal 'knowledge' (=belief) with the reality we can all confirm, or more specifically, noone has been able to falsify. That's a different 'know' and they're not at all the same thing. When one is prepared to make that mistake, it is then also easy to assume that everyone does so, that it is a valid way of arguing and then that FAILure compels one to think atheism is a religion, that it's all just one belief structure and another, further solidifying a sense of validation.

 

[kenandkids]

"Singularity". It is not an object, its a region of undefined solutions. So few people actually understand this.

I actually use it in the manner of an object, mostly because people simply can't wrap their mind around the concept if I don't. Now that you mention it, I am a bit bothered...

 

[JustBusiness17]

What are you writting? Whatever it is, I would love to read it. Language manipulation is something I find really interesting. Its heavily used in cults like Landmark Education and Scientology as a form of mind control. "Newspeak" from Orwell's '1982' demonstrated that if you control language, you control what and how people think. It also forms naturally in businesses or any other type of social group through organizational culture. Its amazing how much language has developed just through the use of the internet...


Here are some contributions:

Faith and religion when applied to atheism, evolution or even global warming.

Propaganda seems to be a word most people seem ignorant of. They seem to understand the general concept but I dont think they know how to identify the tools (Eg repetition) or when they are being subjected to it.

They make no distinctions between the big bang, abiogenisis, and evolution.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned God. Theists will often jump from anthropromorphic to deistic definitions mid-debate.

Christian... who is a real Christian anyways?

The bible is true and unquestionable (except for sometimes).

I dont think any of them know what the word ironic means otherwise they wouldn't be it all the time.

Freedom of religion seems to have a strange definition to a lot of christians.

Communist, socialist, marxist are political but its hard to acheive separation of church and state until christians figure out what that means.

Evidence, fact, missing link, monkey, carbon-dating, macro-evolution, designed, by accident, from nothing, conciousness, morality, revalation, miracle... I could go on if you like...

 

[JustBusiness17]

If you need any more, just watch kent hovind or any of the youtube creationists... They come fast and frequently... I cant even watch those guys lately because I get sick to my stomach just listening to the misuse of language and blatent fallicies.

 

[e2iPi]

What are you writting? Whatever it is, I would love to read it. Language manipulation is something I find really interesting. Its heavily used in cults like Landmark Education and Scientology as a form of mind control. "Newspeak" from Orwell's '1982' demonstrated that if you control language, you control what and how people think. It also forms naturally in businesses or any other type of social group through organizational culture. Its amazing how much language has developed just through the use of the internet...

I was planning on a general discussion of language manipulation then moving on into specific examples - I obviously have a lot to choose from. Although by and large, I believe the errors come from ignorance, I do have a bit so say about those who intentionally manipulate language apparently in an attempt to make communication of any ideas contrary to their own essentially impossible (interesting you mentioned Orwell).
It will take a while as I am not an expert on language by training, tend to be a slow writer anyway and I am doing this as a side project. But I will post a link when I'm done (or at least to the RFC stage )

Thanks again, everyone.

-1

 

[Prolescum]

What are you writting? Whatever it is, I would love to read it. Language manipulation is something I find really interesting. Its heavily used in cults like Landmark Education and Scientology as a form of mind control. "Newspeak" from Orwell's '1982' demonstrated that if you control language, you control what and how people think.

Is that a prequel?
The essay at the end of that book is excellent, and we can certainly see - at least most observably in American English - some of the principles being used in practice with new compounds and portmanteaus like Dinnertainment, guesstimate, tanorexic, flexitarian etc. I'm not convinced of any nefarious plan to break down words to promote misunderstanding or to 'dumb down', though.
It's definitely an interesting topic. What's also interesting/worrying is that guesstimate doesn't come up as erroneous in the auto-spell checker...

 

[borrofburi]

@Aught3 and xman, yes in an ideal world we would all make the distinguish between "know" and "believe" and the levels to which our beliefs have been confirmed (I try my best to remember which beliefs are "because I heard it in a chatroom online that one time I think", and "because my book told me so, then the professor, then we did the experiment ourselves", but it is quite difficult); however, the reason these people tend to be in this state is precisely because they think personal evidence == proof, so I feel like asking them to make that distinction implicitly in their language is perhaps too much. And if you'll talk to them, the equivocation occurs much "earlier" in their thought processes: if you talk to them, they'll say things like "I know god is real just as much as I know I'm typing on this keyboard right now"; and for that reason I find it to be "merely honest", for in reality they are less diluting the word "know" and more giving you insight into how their thoughts work. [I think that makes more sense, I was sick yesterday, and indeed still am, but I feel different now (not sure if I would say better, and I'll leave the judgments on mental clarity and ability to communicate up to you)]

Or at least the best of them are that way, some of them just realize that knowledge is considered a higher form of belief than faith and merely want the rhetorical advantage.

Freedom of religion seems to have a strange definition to a lot of christians.

Communist, socialist, marxist are political but its hard to acheive separation of church and state until christians figure out what that means.

Lately there seems to be a disturbing trend of suggesting that "there is no separation of church and state in the constitution, that's a lie from those evil atheists." It of course is not quite so simple as telling them they are wrong, because they then choose a strict interpretation of "congress shall make no law" as just that: so long as congress doesn't make a law making an official religion of the USA, it's ok for the government to endorse christianity over every other religion. It really is rather disturbing, though I imagine if we want to talk about it further we should make a thread about it... Oh blast it, I'll just make a thread about it.