Atheism and agnosticism

[drunkenshoe]

Yeah but you two have a special relationship Shoe. Like Ralph and Alice Kramden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Honeymooners

strom, I just read the characters and I really don't think they resemble any of us from the descriptions. He doesn't insult me or throw hollow threats, he has a strict opinion on why I get the reactions I do. He never approved/s my general 'manner'. I'm not a poster he likes. I am neither patient nor levelheaded.

[aitm]

 

It takes two to argue, eh? What fucking bullshit.

[drunkenshoe]

Yes, that's why I put it there at the end.

[mauricio]

You cant complain about people who call themselves feminist because you dislike one interpretation of what that word means, then say that the popular interpretation of agnostic is wrong because only one meaning is the "true" meaning.

Interesting. When we discussed the semantics about ideological labels some months ago i was spousing this same position. Basically saying that the definitions of a word are only descriptions of multiple instances of significant common usage in different contexts. That there is no true definition that is THE definition. Specially when talking about words that describe complex ideologies with many members and ideas that may differ with each other. Some quotes from that thread:

Shinaru:
If you are not a feminist, then you are by definition against women, or at the very least unconcerned about their equality... which in practical terms is the same

Mauricio:
I'm not a feminist and believe in gender equality and have nothing against woman (what does that even mean, anyway, being against woman?)

now what?

Shinaru:
Quote from: mauricio on October 05, 2015, 08:42:55 PM
I'm not a feminist and believe in gender equality...

So... you're a feminist...

Feminism = gender equality, or a branch of it. If you believe in gender equality, you are a feminist.

Mauricio:
No I'm not a feminist it is not a statement of fact, you think I'm a feminist, because that's how you define feminism as purely the believe in gender equality.


Shinaru:
A. That isn't what I said, I said feminism is the belief that women should be equal to men. It is a BRANCH of gender equality, like anti-theism is a branch of atheism.
B. Yes, that's how I define feminism, because that is the definition of feminism:


"1.the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."

_________________________________________________________________________________


I wonder if you would agree with this quote in which I explained my underlying reasoning on why whether someone's position is defined by an ideological label is not a prescriptive matter.

Mauricio:


Yes i read that, you posed that analogy towards jason asking him if he would take the same stance with the word atheist. Personally I would, since my stance is consistent with all terms, I don't believe in prescriptive definitions. I believe in multiple meanings due to context and this meanings being defined by common usage. I won't dictate what is the TRUE meaning of feminism or atheism or whatever to anyone.When i consider it necessary I make my definitions clear first then proceed with the dialogue. If i want to debate the semantics I appeal to the common usage by showing sources that show there's a significant amount of people that use that word to mean that in their specific context or they self describe themselves with that term and claim their specific believes they associate with the term. I also believe most rational people should understand that when criticizing an ideology or a group you are directing your criticism towards the specifics you are talking about and not all it's possible instances (generalizing).

[mauricio]

All quotes come from this thread http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=8545.0

Btw this is not a cheap gotcha bullshit or an attempt to incite more feminism shitflinging i just care about the reasoning people use to deal with ideological labels. That is what im more concerned with in the writing of this posts: the semantic discussion.

[Baruch]

Then you are really interested in: semiotics

"Semiotics (also called semiotic studies; not to be confused with the Saussurean tradition called semiology which is a part of semiotics) is the study of meaning-making, the study of sign processes and meaningful communication."

Shoe is really into that also.  No wonder you two don't get along ;-) ... you are like two Highlanders (scifi version) and there is only room for one of you ... think of Samurai TV Repairman (John Belushi) except in English class ... so words must be beheaded (i mean parsed).

It is possible for any of us to be inconsistent for various reasons, not the least of which is that English is an inexact attempt at a real language.  And of course some us might be engaged in down and dirty rhetoric more appropriate for bar fights at librarian conventions.

[Jannabear]

I'm glad to see you guys discussed this so much, I find the topic to be interesting and I want to hear more about it, I'm still not sure whether or not I think falsifiability should be a factor for whether or not you're an agnostic towards something, as I stand I'm an outright atheist to specific ideas of gods and an atheist agnostic towards the idea of a god in general.

[Solomon Zorn]

Sorry so slow responding, I've been away from the computer for  the weekend.

I didn't make a claim.

Objection!

We do possess the knowledge that proves that a creator cannot exist. It's called linguistics.

C'mon! This is a claim!

I put a several claims together, because it makes sense to me.

Several claims together is still a claim!

I translated a book based on seminar lectures about how European vernaculars became languages last summer and had to read a lot about it. Social history of language in the Western culture.  While studying history of art and related fields -I gave 10 years to that in the univ after graduated, I was a res asst.- I had to study cultural history and anthropology and I have an idea of the general tendencies going around. So this is why, 'erm...this is different what has changed?' started in my mind. We are talking about roughly a 30 year old discipline. It has lots of problems, but it looks like with little it accomplished very good in short time.

And with general lingusitics it always goes back and forth with extreme ideas or philosophical monologues. As I said I stand behind Popper. I am not fond of linguistic determinists, but we need to work with them. Wittgenstein is one extreme, even he doesn't agree with Mauthner in his statement with Chinese/Dakotan Aristo -actually, his disagreement line with Mauthner became a famous motto about the subject; I think his answer to him is in Tractatus, not sure- but he concludes the same all over about language-thought; limits of language; limit of thought process. Mauthner's idea is developed from Nietzsche's language is 'prison' view. Yes he is a linguist determinist. Sprachkritik is always where this shit ends. There is no philosophical discourse without it; no way around it. None of it could have a conclusion, this is an ever going-changing process/discussion/production however you want to name it. Extreme or not these people belong to the same German analytical thought tradition, they cannot be excluded, so socio-linguists don't. Because they can't.

Even with someone as controversial as Whorf, (America; beginning of the 20th centur linguist) has huge influence and when they start to produce different thoughts on how to evaluate historical archives -could be it on anything, but the thing is just not the context or the texts not for what  they mean, but how they use the language- on written culture, they find themselves getting closer to 'extremes' like him or people labeled as 'biased' like Bernstein (Britan; mid 20th century, sociologist). That was what makes me think 'interesting', I recognise this from somewhere. Are they there? No. But it is getting weird.

Abstract concepts needs written culture to be born and develop. This alone is worth considering it as a handicap. We developed secular and atheistic concepts from religious concepts -not necessarily theistic, but 'religious'- in contrast with them. They are the results of critical thought. This is what I mean and why I think matters highly. This has nothing to do with science or the logic you apply to those concepts. It's about what is inherent in the very concept. This is why it is very important even to strip atheism from discussion of religions when considering its concepts.

I am sure you have heard of the humanist writer Françoise Rabelais. (France, 16th century) He is defined as a 'atheist' and anti Christian in many sources. Lucien Febvre (France 19th-20th century historian) argued in his study on language and mentality as an answer for defining Rebalais as an atheist (Lefranc) and said that atheism was impossible in 16th century France, because among other reasons, first of all the French language lacked the abstract concepts to sustain such a world view. (He said it's so ridiculous as an anachronism, 'it is like giving Digenes an umbrella' -The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century: The Religion of Rabelais) Febvre is also close friends with March Bloch who is the father of comparative history. Its mother is linguistics, lol.

It sounds like a fascinating study, but not so much that I'm going to devote my time to it. When writing, always consider your audience. I am an uneducated hick, not a linguistics scholar. The names you just dropped in your response mean nothing to me.

I have a lot of thoughts on the subject, but they are not as informed as your own. That doesn't mean that I have to defer to your conclusions, when, given the information that you have provided, your logic doesn't convince me.

... And besides, you started it, dear Shoe.

Nope, you did when you wrote how you missed my 'condescending' posts. You can't write something to me without making a negative personal comment on me and then blame me with insulting people. You provoke me and then complain when I bite back.

Okay. Here's some linguistics for you: “it” in my thoughts meant this specific argument, on this thread; when to you, “it” meant some ongoing conflict that you perceive to be our argument. You apparently feel slighted by my reproaching you for argumentum ad-hominem in some of your posts. What you don't seem to remember, is that I was the victim of one of those dismissals, back a few years ago, calling me an “American,” if you know what I mean. So it was still you who started it, Shoe.

And I think it's you who can't see past my criticisms, to what my real attitude is toward you: if I thought so little  of your opinions, I would not engage with you, for one thing, so you can come off the persecution angle. I only criticize you because, I know you to be highly intelligent, well read, and thoughtful. You can do without the personal comments, and make your point much better.

[SGOS]

One of the first discussions I ever participated in here was about the semantics of agnosticism.  I was disappointed when the whole thread was quickly smacked down and buried.  I think the typical sentiment  expressed was in one quote from someone I can no longer remember:  "Not this shit again!"

Anyway, keep up the good fight.  Just because semantics never seemed like a good argument for or against something, doesn't mean it's not worth discussion.  Semantics plays a big part in mankind's inability to relate with itself.  The mechanics seem important, but often get ignored in the heat of a debate.

[aitm]

someone I can no longer remember:  "Not this shit again!"

[SGOS]

I think the typical sentiment  expressed in one quote from someone I can no longer remember:  "Not this shit again!"

LOL  I honestly can't remember the source of that quote, but of all the people that have stopped by to drop a post or two since then, I could easily be convinced that the credit belongs to you.

[drunkenshoe]

One of the first discussions I ever participated in here was about the semantics of agnosticism.  I was disappointed when the whole thread was quickly smacked down and buried.  I think the typical sentiment  expressed was in one quote from someone I can no longer remember:  "Not this shit again!"

Anyway, keep up the good fight.  Just because semantics never seemed like a good argument for or against something, doesn't mean it's not worth discussion.  Semantics plays a big part in mankind's inability to relate with itself.  The mechanics seem important, but often get ignored in the heat of a debate.

Err...yeah? Semantics is branch of the linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. That is the discussion. Also what you and aitm are pitching is a brilliant daily example concerning the topic in general. Super. 

You use the word 'semantics' like a 'magic' word as if it would reduces the names of concepts into some meaningless indistinguishable "you call it John or Peter whatever catches yuor fancy' and the whole discussion useless.

What a strawman....*whistle.

And that 'semantic' is not an 'argument' against or for anything.

[drunkenshoe]

You know what, it looks like American culture pretty much emptied everything that looks obscure to itself or didn't cross the pond. And transformed them into Holywood lines, so they could live.

Because that^ is how 'semantics' used in movie lines and daily conversations.

-blah blah blah is blah blah, but blah blah is NOT blah blah.
-Pfft semantics. (I win!)

And what is this attitude of 'you kids dig it, there is nothing'? Not this shit again suits the Noah's Ark and Universal Morality threads, not a discussion about a huge scholarship that had a MAJOR influence on OUR WRITTEN CULTURE. You are not out of this. Nobody is.

But then it is what you already know about it, isn't it? Seems like you two know everything.

[mauricio]

Err...yeah? Semantics is branch of the linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. That is the discussion.

You use the word 'semantics' like a 'magic' word as if it would reduces the names of concepts into some meaningless indistinguishable "you call it John or Peter whatever catches yuor fancy'.

What a strawman....*whistle.

And that 'semantic' is not an 'argument' against or for anything.

You are correct but i think he is talking about how arguments can delve into pointless semantics discussion which in reality are just people trying to impose their preferred definitions after both sides have already made their definitions clear instead of agreeing on terms for the sake of the discussion and moving on or delving into their deeper semantic reasoning (justifying your definition)

[drunkenshoe]

You are correct but i think he is talking about how arguments can delve into pointless semantics discussion which in reality are just people trying to impose their preferred definitions after both sides have already made their definitions clear instead of agreeing on terms for the sake of the discussion and moving on or delving into their deeper semantic reasoning (justifying your definition)

That's the Holywood movie definition of semantics I am talking about. I tried to talk about Sprachkritik as much as I could do it which was rejected as 'bullshit'. This is a very hard, long subject with a huge scholarship noone actually has a full grasp of considering the scope. This doesn't have an end and can't. It's about thinking on it, reading pieces, messing up with it and producing ideas, angles. Not to mention it is the basics of written cultural heritage of the Western civilisation. Which we rely on by the way if he didn't notice.   

If he thinks that is a 'pointless semantic discussion' or that his ideas and opinions exist out of it, he is pretty much out of it. Whatever I say I am the bad guy here as usual.

How pathetic is that trying hard to look down on a discussion or a topic -doesn't matter how it goes- that includes knowledge in it; forces people to think. This is not 'how did Noah build the ark?' ffs.

It's basically "I don't get it and I don't like it, then it is bullshit!" Why that sounds so familiar? Hmmm 

Myeh...