-->
@3RU7AL
industrial pollution apparently doesn't factor into your equations
You got me. You found an example my one sentence framework doesn’t address. Well done.
Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"
Posts
Total:
417
-->
@Double_R
"Going along with the crowd" is what you are doing every time you post a dictionary definition to argue what the meaning of the word is.
Because how you ever win an argument if the same word meant the same thing from one post to another?
-->
@Reece101
and they can't be expressed with numbersWell yes they can. They can also be expressed with geometry in the form of words, which we’ve been discussing.
words CAN BE represented with numbers
but that doesn't mean words ARE numbers
-->
@oromagi
Because how you ever win an argument if the same word meant the same thing from one post to another?
Recall that this particular conversation began when you decided to chime in on my use of the word "semantics" to rant about how what I actually was talking about was a "semantic argument".
As if it was ever unclear to anyone what the term "that's just semantics" means.
Then when I pointed out to you that everyone (except you apparently) knows what the term means you went on another rant about how I'm using argumentum ad populum. A retort that could only make sense to someone oblivious to the fact that all words are made up by people.
Now you're acting as if the idea of people using words in a way which it was not originally intended is tantamount to blowing up all language. It's not.
The only thing that matters in conversation is that the two people speaking understand what the other is trying to say. If I have explained to you what I mean when I use a specific term then that's all you need to understand my point. If you want to keep playing this game then that's you're problem, I'll move on to someone who cares about actual issues.
-->
@Double_R
Recall that this particular conversation began when you decided to chime in on my use of the word "semantics" to rant about how what I actually was talking about was a "semantic argument".
- I beg your pardon but 3RU7AL made this topic explicitly about semantics with the OP specifically addressed to my arguments. (i.e. "Where is the value that performatively similar ideologies must be condensed under the same name?" This conversation began in mid-June with your semantic argument that we eliminate the several most strict, semantically coherent, dictionary definitions of the word ATHEIST and make it only so ATHIEST is only understood by it broadest sense, the same thing as AGNOSTIC, with no interest in the semantic losses inherent to those more strict definitions.
- "(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself"
As if it was ever unclear to anyone what the term "that's just semantics" means.
- POST#7 "that deliberately obscures any clear notion of semantic intent"
- POST#35 "the most precise definition of AGNOSTICISM already occupies the precise semantic grounds that 3RU7AL is trying to redefine as ATHEISM"
- POST#62 " That is semantically coherent but Double_R argued for its exclusion"
- POST#78 "The influx of neologisms will have uprooted the necessity of strict measures, not to mention, we are discussing semantics. I believe that logically coherent concepts are important for argument"
- So- clearly Athias understands the meaning of SEMANTICS
- POST#91 "the original intent of the word has been trampled. That's a shame and an essential semantic distinction lost. "
- POST#118 "My contention is with the formal reasoning and semantics."
- POST#138 "It's not worth getting into the semantic debate here, define them however you want."
- Oops. In an argument all about a semantic distinction, you say you don't want' to get into semantics. Seems like you don't understand the context of this topic.
- POST#164 "if you don't see how every single conversation you've ever had is "just a semantic game" then i have no idea what you think language is"
- So- clearly 3RU7AL does not understand the meaning of SEMANTICS and he clearly has a different, wrong definition of the word than you do when you reply:
- POST#169 "Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not."
- Which is not what SEMANTICS is even a little bit.
Then when I pointed out to you that everyone (except you apparently) knows what the term means
- We don't have to leave this forum topic to see that you and 3RU7AL both have very different, very incorrect definitions of the word and so you have no hope of understanding one another because you aren't talking about the same idea when you use that word.
you went on another rant about how I'm using argumentum ad populum.
- Well, first I corrected your bad information about what SEMANTIC and SEMANTIC ARGUMENT mean.
- You replied by mocking me (Drax) and demonstrating that you don't understand how figurative language works, either.
- I corrected your bad information about what FIGURATIVE and LITERAL mean
- You replied, "I've never heard of situation where everyone reading it didn't know what that meant."
- Again, you need only read this forum topic for examples
The only thing that matters in conversation is that the two people speaking understand what the other is trying to say. If I have explained to you what I mean when I use a specific term then that's all you need to understand my point.
- And I side with Socrates, Voltaire, Durant, and Dawkins when they advise that you are quite wrong to think so.
-->
@oromagi
DR......The only thing that matters in conversation is that the two people speaking understand what the other is trying to say. If I have explained to you what I mean when I use a specific term then that's all you need to understand my point.
I agree with DR in the above. If we agree on a common definition for a word ex one { 1 }, then we can move on the the next word or number 1 + 1 = a set of of 2 { aka 1....1.
Numbers and math{ counting } preceded written words.
Abacus was first computing technology.
Words
...ebuc....
Words
abound,
And
then there are,
So
many more concepts,
Than
there are words.
Words
within,
There
exists so much more meaning,
Than
there are concepts,
Within
the lanquage of words.
Words
without,
So
many words,
Lacking
depth of expression,
As
felt in our soul.
Words
of intellect,
The
philosophers tool,
Spinning
our thoughts and our thinking,
While
orbiting all truths.
Words
of observation,
Such
varied perceptions,
From
similar sensoral experiences,
Of
our known reality.
Words
upon words,
Baffles
the mind,
Inside-outs
our consiousness,
And
fulfills our needs.
Words
of war,
Words
of peace,
Words
have power,
Words
help us release.
Words
to our music,
Words
come in our sleep,
Words
all around us,
Words
make us weep.
Words
have a function,
Words
guide us the way,
Words
fill our minds,
Words
give us our say.
-->
@oromagi
- POST#164 "if you don't see how every single conversation you've ever had is "just a semantic game" then i have no idea what you think language is"
- So- clearly 3RU7AL does not understand the meaning of SEMANTICS
Semantics (from Ancient Greek: σημαντικός sēmantikós, "significant")[a][1] is the study of reference, meaning, or truth. The term can be used to refer to subfields of several distinct disciplines, including philosophy, linguistics and computer science.
-->
@oromagi
Meaning
Gottlob Frege argued that reference cannot be treated as identical with meaning: "Hesperus" (an ancient Greek name for the evening star) and "Phosphorus" (an ancient Greek name for the morning star) both refer to Venus, but the astronomical fact that '"Hesperus" is "Phosphorus"' can still be informative, even if the "meanings" of "Hesperus" and "Phosphorus" are already known. This problem led Frege to distinguish between the sense and reference of a word. Some cases seem to be too complicated to be classified within this framework; the acceptance of the notion of secondary reference may be necessary to fill the gap. See also Opaque context.
Gottlob Frege argued that reference cannot be treated as identical with meaning: "Hesperus" (an ancient Greek name for the evening star) and "Phosphorus" (an ancient Greek name for the morning star) both refer to Venus, but the astronomical fact that '"Hesperus" is "Phosphorus"' can still be informative, even if the "meanings" of "Hesperus" and "Phosphorus" are already known. This problem led Frege to distinguish between the sense and reference of a word. Some cases seem to be too complicated to be classified within this framework; the acceptance of the notion of secondary reference may be necessary to fill the gap. See also Opaque context.
-->
@oromagi
All of this because you found out so troubling for the word "semantics" to be used as shorthand for "semantic argument", something any normal person does in any normal conversation.
When I said "this conversation began..." I was talking about this particular conversation between you and I, not the entire thread.
I don't know what you really think you are accomplishing by posting examples of people using the word "semantics" in the way it is technically defined. That refutes nothing I've said. I never argued that it doesn't mean what you say, I argued that it can be and is used in other ways which is a perfectly normal thing in communication. Perhaps you should get away from your computer/phone and have real conversations with real people where it is not normal to chime in to every conversation with Google to correct people's usage of words as technically incorrect.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@3RU7AL
More than atheism having a lack of belief, I would say that religion is an overdose of belief, basing themselves on things that are not proven by science to exist and justifing it all with the "faith".
-->
@Double_R
from your own link
“It’s Just Semantics”
So what does the phrase really mean? It’s usually a shorthand way of saying, “That’s trivial or unimportant,” or “Now we’re just arguing about the meaning of words.” It can also be a way of saying that both sides mean the same thing but use different language to express it. In short, you can agree to disagree because the dispute is negligible.
“That’s just semantics” or “You’re just arguing semantics” might pop up when debating controversial topics, but it doesn’t have to be a stopping point. If semantics is all about meaning, then perhaps the speaker should be saying, “We just disagree on meaning.” But questioning what the other person means is what most good debates are about.
If the disagreement is really about word choice, that wouldn’t be covered by semantics. That would be covered by lexicography or diction. But, “You’re just arguing lexicography” doesn’t have the same ring to it.
-->
@Basti123
Well stated.
-->
@Basti123
Good for you.
What Does It Mean When Someone Says 'That's Just Semantics'?
By: Michelle Konstantinovsky
According to Merriam-Webster, the word "semantics" means: "The historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development." Got that? No wonder it's so misunderstood....
Sometime in the late 19th century, people began using the word "semantics" to allude to "semiotics," a philosophical theory covering the relationship between signs and the things they reference — most notably, words and their intended meanings. Sometime after that, people began arguing over what "semantics" itself actually means (ironic, don't you think?).
These days, you're likely to hear someone accuse a debate partner of "just arguing semantics," which, if you think about it, means their debate partner is "just arguing about meaning," which you would think is, like, the point of arguing in the first place? But in our modern vernacular, the phrase has somehow become shorthand to insinuate the speaker has argued something trivial or unimportant. At its core, that's not what "semantics" is meant to represent at all. Or is it? We asked an array of language experts to help us get to the bottom of the word's origin, its current adaptation, and whether saying someone's argument is "just semantics" is a legit criticism or just a major cop-out.
What Experts Say About Semantics
Jenny Lederer, assistant professor and linguistics advisor in the Department of English Language and Literature at San Francisco State University: "Semantics is the study of meaning in context; it's the investigation of how words, phrases and sentences evoke concepts and ideas in our minds. As we learn language, we attach meanings to words by learning what objects and concepts each word refers to.
"'It's just semantics' is a common retort people use when arguing their point. What they mean is that their argument or opinion is more valid than the other person's. It's a way to be dismissive of language itself as carrier for ideas. It implies that ideas and arguments can be separated from the words and phrases used to encode those ideas. The irony, of course, is that the words and phrases we use are the ideas. There is no way to communicate a complex argument or message without language. Language and thought are completely interconnected. In fact, words shape concepts and can lead to drastically different understandings of the same thing. For example, inheritance taxes can be called 'death taxes' or 'estate taxes.' These two political phrases frame the same tax law in drastically different ways. Semantics really matters."
Robert Henderson, Associate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona: "Semantics is the study of meaning very broadly. We have semantics for human languages, but also for logics, or computer languages. In the case of human languages, to have a semantics for a language is to be able to assign a meaning to every word in that language, and then to compute the meanings of sentences based on the meanings of those words and how they are put together.
"The phrase, 'that's just semantics,' is thus a little confusing. People seem to use it when they want to say that the disagreement they're currently having is due to word choice and not due to a substantive disagreement. But that is not semantics at all. That would be, like, lexicography. The reason this phrase has nothing to do with actual semantics is that if we were having an argument that boiled down to 'just semantics,' then we would be having an argument about what words mean. But that is not insubstantial at all! In fact, it is incredibly important for us to figure out what the various parties to an argument actually mean if we hope to resolve it. So, what is going on here? I think that it seems that in popular parlance, people use 'semantics' to mean something like 'nitpicky distinctions.' That is, in the popular use, when I dive into the semantics of what you're saying, I'm closely parsing every little thing. Thus, if we are having an argument and it's 'just semantics,' then what you're saying is that we're having an argument over fine, nitpicky details that don't matter. I don't like this use because I'm a semanticist, and that is not what I do at all. I do logic, actually. But, what can you do? People will speak the way people speak."
Dylan Bumford, assistant professor in the Department of Linguistics at UCLA: "There are various technical notions that go by the name 'semantics.' Mostly, they are trying to characterize the ways that linguistic forms (like logical formulas, or computer programs or sentences in English) are, or ought to be, associated with the things they describe. In logic, this often takes the form of rules that match formulas with mathematical structures. In computer science, programs may be associated with procedures for transforming machine states. In philosophy and linguistics, you might find English expressions matched up with specific objects and scenes, or at least representations of these. Outside of these research fields, my sense is that people use the word 'semantics' to describe very fine distinctions between different categories, especially if those distinctions are so subtle as to be irrelevant. In this sense, 'semantics' would be something like the art of making annoyingly precise or pedantic linguistic choices.
"I take it when most people describe an argument as a 'matter of semantics,' they mean that the two sides are effectively saying the same thing, or that the difference between them is negligible; the positions differ only in the words that are used (to some, this would make it a matter of syntax, not semantics; but of course, to others, that very difference might be a matter of semantics). Sometimes, though, discussions really are about the meanings of words. If two people agree on all the facts — they know who did what to who, and what happened when, etc. — but they still disagree on whether a certain sentence is true, they may be having a genuine debate about semantics, about what objects or situations should be associated with various expressions. For instance, if we disagree about whether Donald Trump withheld military aid in an effort to persuade the Ukrainian prime minister to launch an investigation into Trump's political opponents, we are having a substantive disagreement about what actually happened, about what the world is like. But if we agree that he did this, yet nevertheless disagree about whether such an action constituted a 'quid pro quo' or 'high crime,' we might instead be having a debate about semantics. As should be clear though, in this sense, semantic disputes can indeed be very big deals!"
Shane Steinert-Threlkeld, assistant professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Washington: "Semantics is the scientific study of meaning as expressed in language. Usually, this means doing things like explaining formally under what conditions sentences in natural languages are true or false, or when one sentence implies or presupposes another. The methods can also be applied to formal languages like programming languages, where one would explain, for example, how a computer program will behave.
"Indeed, a difference in a debate that came down to 'just semantics' would be a pretty big deal, since it means that we're using expressions in different ways. There seems to be a use of the phrase that means something more like 'this dispute is merely verbal: we actually agree, but we appear to disagree because we are using certain terms in slightly different ways.' I'm not sure that 'just semantics' is a particularly apt way of expressing that thought, but it's one that some people seem to use."
Toshiyuki Ogihara, professor and graduate program coordinator in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Washington: "In most cases, when people say that it is just semantics, they mean that two expressions refer to the 'same situation' or 'same thing' but their connotations are different."
So, In the End ...
In the end, it seems that when something is "just a matter of semantics," it's usually wording that potentially matters a lot, despite the somewhat casual connotation of the phrase. Words carry meaning, and thankfully, we're living in a time in which our society is starting to take that notion seriously (case in point: preferred gender pronouns are finally becoming the norm). And while people have always and will always disagree over perspectives and world views, simply writing off semantics as a somehow nit-picky or superficial concept isn's really a constructive way to move the conversation forward. Instead, acknowledging that the things we say and the things we mean are undeniably interwoven and powerful might be a better jumping off point for deep (and not so deep) discussions.
-->
@3RU7AL
@oromagi
So what does the phrase really mean? It’s usually a shorthand way of saying, “That’s trivial or unimportant,” or “Now we’re just arguing about the meaning of words.” It can also be a way of saying that both sides mean the same thing but use different language to express it. In short, you can agree to disagree because the dispute is negligible.
Perhaps instead of host posting articles, either of you two can explain why we are still having this conversation? What is your point?
-->
@Double_R
On the OP "Atheism is simply "a lack of belief" I think I made my point quite clearly in my vote on that debate in mid-June - that the definition of ATHEISM means more than simply "a lack of belief" and ought to continue to do so.
3RU7AL concedes as much in POST#45. He says he conceded the point earlier but I find no evidence to support that claim.
I was definitely done by POST#74 when I complained about endless repetition of the same arguments.
All other posts are merely noting misunderstandings and offering corrections in the spirit of 3RU7AL's OP request that we "point out any errors you may find."
-->
@oromagi
On the OP "Atheism is simply "a lack of belief" I think I made my point quite clearly in my vote on that debate in mid-June - that the definition of ATHEISM means more than simply "a lack of belief" and ought to continue to do so.
Change of subject? That's cool, time to move on...
So, since we're back into this... did you have any plans of responding to post 93?
-->
@Double_R
Change of subject? That's cool, time to move on...
please, god. no.
So, since we're back into this...
2nd post: I was definitely done by POST#74 when I complained about endless repetition of the same arguments.
did you have any plans of responding to post 93?
same answer as the first two times you asked that question.
-->
@oromagi
- Are you conceding that the status quo is sufficiently representative of your personal preference?
Yes.
As I've repeatedly tried to make clear to you, it has never been my intention for "lack of belief" to be used to the exclusion of all other descriptions.
this is not a "concession" of the entire debate
-->
@Double_R
So what does the phrase really mean? It’s usually a shorthand way of saying, “That’s trivial or unimportant,” or “Now we’re just arguing about the meaning of words.” It can also be a way of saying that both sides mean the same thing but use different language to express it. In short, you can agree to disagree because the dispute is negligible.Perhaps instead of host posting articles, either of you two can explain why we are still having this conversation? What is your point?
I'M QUOTING YOUR SOURCE
THIS IS YOUR SOURCE
WHICH SEEMS TO CLEARLY CONTRADICT YOUR POINT
Thiest = God created Universe
Athiest = God and Universe are synonyms at worst, or is that, at best?
God/Universe = eternally existent, Cosmic Trinary and Primary Set:
...1} eternally existent meta-space { Spirit-1 } mind/intellect/concepts and ego,
------------abstract conceptual line-of-demarcation------------------
....2} eternally existent, macro-infinite, non-occupied space, that, embraces/surrounds the following,
.....3} eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe { Spirit-2-fermions and bosons, Spirit-3-Gravity and Spirit-4-Dark Energy }.
Simple? Yes.
Wholistically complete? Yes.
None have, or ever will offer any logical common sense, that, invalidates or adds to the above trinary set.
-->
@3RU7AL
@oromagi
@Double_R
Belief.
Is simply a lack of definitive evidence.
If something is factual then belief is irrelevant.
Actually existent GODS are not facts, therefore theists like to substitute factual certainty with imagination....Belief.
Atheists do not benefit from interpreting data in quite the same way.
Data in, data assessment, data storage and maybe data output.
The consolidation of theistic style data or atheistic style data, is usually relative to the formative conditioning of children.
Refer to it as education or refer to it as brainwashing. You choose.
-->
@zedvictor4
Well stated.
-->
@Basti123
More than atheism having a lack of belief, I would say that religion is an overdose of belief, basing themselves on things that are not proven by science to exist and justifing it all with the "faith".
Why is "proven by science" the measure of existence as opposed to a measure of existence?
-->
@zedvictor4
Belief.Is simply a lack of definitive evidence.
What is definitive evidence without belief?
If something is factual then belief is irrelevant.
Believing fact is fact is not relevant?
Actually existent GODS are not facts
Prove it.
therefore theists like to substitute factual certainty with imagination
Internal data processing as you would put it, correct?
Atheists do not benefit from interpreting data in quite the same way.
But they still do, the same way.
Data in, data assessment, data storage and maybe data output.The consolidation of theistic style data or atheistic style data, is usually relative to the formative conditioning of children.Refer to it as education or refer to it as brainwashing. You choose.
Modify education with "public" and there's virtually no difference.
-->
@3RU7AL
So what does the phrase really mean? It’s usually a shorthand way of saying, “That’s trivial or unimportant,” or “Now we’re just arguing about the meaning of words.” It can also be a way of saying that both sides mean the same thing but use different language to express it. In short, you can agree to disagree because the dispute is negligible.“That’s just semantics” or “You’re just arguing semantics” might pop up when debating controversial topics, but it doesn’t have to be a stopping point. If semantics is all about meaning, then perhaps the speaker should be saying, “We just disagree on meaning.” But questioning what the other person means is what most good debates are about.If the disagreement is really about word choice, that wouldn’t be covered by semantics. That would be covered by lexicography or diction. But, “You’re just arguing lexicography” doesn’t have the same ring to it.
Well stated.
-->
@Athias
Definitive evidence without belief is definitive evidence....So defines a fact rather than a hypothesis.
I don't believe facts, I accept them.
Show me an actually existent GOD.
Imagination.....Internal data processing for sure.
Exactly...Internal data processing, different outcomes.
Well "public" is a very general word....Whereas religion is somewhat more sectarian....Hence there are different groupings teaching different things.
Hence not every one believes in imaginary deities, or the same imaginary deity.
But yes, I was saying that the formative conditioning of children is brainwashing.....In my opinion of course.
-->
@zedvictor4
Definitive evidence without belief is definitive evidence.
perhaps you might be kind enough to provide an example
-->
@zedvictor4
Definitive evidence without belief is definitive evidence.
But aren't conclusions such as "definitive" or "inconclusive" dictated by belief? The metrics we apply are constructed for the purposes of satisfying belief, correct?
...So defines a fact rather than a hypothesis.
I'm not seeing how this excludes belief.
Show me an actually existent GOD.
Your proof that actually existent Gods aren't fact is that one has yet to be shown to you?
Well "public" is a very general word....Whereas religion is somewhat more sectarian....Hence there are different groupings teaching different things.Hence not every one believes in imaginary deities, or the same imaginary deity.
My contention has never been against one's opting to not believe in an imaginary deity; my contention has always been against the suggestion of disqualification as it concerned an (imaginary) deity existing.