TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Define "define"
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter ... At this point they seem to just try to obfuscate the issue by calling into question everything from the distinction between two separate objects to basic philosophical and scientific premises such as the possibility of knowledge. ...

You didn't supply this with a name tag, but if it's directed at my questions in the "Personal Responsibility"-thread, then I would like to add that that thread was highly philosophical in the first place, but that I am sorry if I showed bad debating technique.

On this thread's topic: Debating the definitions of terrorism, altruism, and the like is really not great for advancing a debate, but sometimes it is necessary to rectify your opponents view of yourself. E.g. if I say some terror is justified, then a good deal of the people on this board will get aggravated, to prevent this I and show that I am not a nazi, I would have to explain what I associate with the term "terrorism".

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut So true! The only reasonable debaters I can think of who I've disagreed with lately are Epicurus and arctic, the former who seems to have completely disappeared. Damn it!

Cheers. And agreed on the Epicurus point. We (meaning Epicurus and I) appeared to agree on most things, so if I ever happened to get demolished in an argument, I was hoping that I could rely on him to do my dirty work for me. Ah well, hopefully he'll be back, because he was both intelligent and extremely articulate.

Back to the OP though. Whether we realize it or not, sometimes 'definition discussions' are necessary. For instance, if you go to a dictionary and look up the word 'atheism', you're going to find a pretty clear cut meaning. However, in actual fact, there are two types of atheists, weak and strong - both terms carrying fundamentally different meanings. Now, if one person decided to use the dictionary definition of the word, but the other ran with the commonly accepted weak atheism definition - then all they're going to do is talk past each other, and the debate is going to go nowhere.

The key lies in finding a balance. Sure - clarify definitions now and then, but don't get overly bogged down arguing over semantics.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut ridiculous subjective/postmodern definitions .

I agree with you in everything apart from equating post-modernism with wishi-washy subjectivism. If someone says that "table" to them actually means "dog" , they're not postmodernists, just wankers

quote:

Originally posted by astroboy I agree with you in everything apart from equating post-modernism with wishi-washy subjectivism. If someone says that "table" to them actually means "dog" , they're not postmodernists, just wankers

Ah, thank you for clarifying.

I think we all agree that sometimes these arguments over the definition of words are necessary - after all, in any real debate, the resolution has to be clearly defined. The real problem here, the one that TranceGiant was referring to and probably Arbiter as well, is the people who base their entire arguments on a faulty or fallacious definition of one or more words and, as such, refuse to relent on their meaning because it would shatter their whole "system" to do so. I think the whole thing start with Nellie insisting that Christianity was not a religion (sorry to single you out, but that's the earliest case I can remember here), and people saw how that argument blew so out of proportion and decided to adopt the same strategy.

Those people should and hopefully will realize that their efforts are transparent, and that taking that attitude hurts their credibility far more than admitting that they've twisted the definition/resolution a little. People may argue, flame, and sling mud right now, but eventually the major equivocators will just end up being ignored.

And for those who'd like to consider me personally as being in that category (I can't fathom why) - try to remember how you last felt about that when I was on YOUR side of the debate.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic You didn't supply this with a name tag, but if it's directed at my questions in the "Personal Responsibility"-thread, then I would like to add that that thread was highly philosophical in the first place, but that I am sorry if I showed bad debating technique.

It wasn't directed at you in the least. I thoroughly enjoyed your responses and they were completely on topic in that thread.

Thanks - that's nice to know. It seems that even defining obfuscation is difficult without the trusty handrail of concrete examples.

Re: Define "define"

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant These endless discussions about the meaning of words are paralyzing any constructive debate. Ask Swamper to open a goddamn "Definition board" but dont destroy this one.

de�fine ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-fn)
v. de�fined, de�fin�ing, de�fines
v. tr.

1.
a.
To state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for example).
b.
To describe the nature or basic qualities of; explain: define the properties of a new drug; a study that defines people according to their median incomes.

2.
a.
To delineate the outline or form of: gentle hills that were defined against the sky.
b.
To specify distinctly: define the weapons to be used in limited warfare.

3.
To give form or meaning to: �For him, a life is defined by action� (Jay Parini).

v. intr.
To make or write a definition.


for these and more definitions, go to dictionary.com

hahahahahahahahaha
for anyone thinking the only thing missing from these fine political discussions and debates was another smartass ...do not fear!

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Cheers. And agreed on the Epicurus point. We (meaning Epicurus and I) appeared to agree on most things, so if I ever happened to get demolished in an argument, I was hoping that I could rely on him to do my dirty work for me. Ah well, hopefully he'll be back, because he was both intelligent and extremely articulate. Back to the OP though. Whether we realize it or not, sometimes 'definition discussions' are necessary. For instance, if you go to a dictionary and look up the word 'atheism', you're going to find a pretty clear cut meaning. However, in actual fact, there are two types of atheists, weak and strong - both terms carrying fundamentally different meanings. Now, if one person decided to use the dictionary definition of the word, but the other ran with the commonly accepted weak atheism definition - then all they're going to do is talk past each other, and the debate is going to go nowhere. The key lies in finding a balance. Sure - clarify definitions now and then, but don't get overly bogged down arguing over semantics.

If you already adequately defined the "commonly accepted weak atheism" definition in another thread, could you link me to it here? If not, could you explain?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Fin If you already adequately defined the "commonly accepted weak atheism" definition in another thread, could you link me to it here? If not, could you explain?

I didn't go into it in-depth, there was a brief derail in the "To those that believe in Jesus Christ" thread awhile back - so it's probably easier if I just summarize it here.

Weak atheism is a disbelief (or a lack of belief as some like to call it) in the existence of god. It's essentially related to the 'until proof is produced, one shouldn't believe in something' principle. The nice thing about weak atheism is the fact that it doesn't carry the burden of proof - as theism and strong atheism do. I'm going to use a fictional deity to illustrate my point here. Imagine that someone came up to you and asserted that the Invisible Pink Unicorn existed, ruled the universe, and was going to send everyone to hell who didn't accept him/her as their saviour. A weak atheist would at this time have a lack of belief in the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and before believing in it's existence, would need proof. They don't outrightly assert that it cannot exist, merely that until proof is produced, believing in it is neither rational nor reasonable. Although the example is undoubtedly pretty damn stupid, I think that it still stands, heh.

A strong atheist on the other hand, generally hold that gods cannot, do not and never have existed. Strong atheism makes the affirmative claim that no gods exist - full stop. Just as theism carries a burden of proof, I believe that strong atheism also carries this burden, as strong atheists are making an affirmative claim, just as theists do.

Now, that being said - there are variations and crossovers. As I mentioned in my last post, people can be weak atheists with regards to certain gods, or even to gods in general, but be strong atheists when it comes to specific deity(s) - as I am. I believe that the Christian god as defined by and portrayed in the bible does not exist, period. The same goes for the Muslim god, the Jewish god, the Hindu gods and so forth. However, I don't extend this belief to gods in general, but rather lack belief in them until such time as proof of their existence is produced.

It might seem that the two are in fact similar, and in a way, that's true. Both strong an weak atheists, when it comes down to it, don't believe in god. The distinction becomes more important when it comes to debating religion and the ideaof god in general, as the burden of proof idea is generally hashed over. I know that's not the best explanation, but if you were as tired as I am at the moment, you wouldn't make much sense either.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic I didn't go into it in-depth, there was a brief derail in the "To those that believe in Jesus Christ" thread awhile back - so it's probably easier if I just summarize it here. Weak atheism is a disbelief (or a lack of belief as some like to call it) in the existence of god. It's essentially related to the 'until proof is produced, one shouldn't believe in something' principle. The nice thing about weak atheism is the fact that it doesn't carry the burden of proof - as theism and strong atheism do. I'm going to use a fictional deity to illustrate my point here. Imagine that someone came up to you and asserted that the Invisible Pink Unicorn existed, ruled the universe, and was going to send everyone to hell who didn't accept him/her as their saviour. A weak atheist would at this time have a lack of belief in the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and before believing in it's existence, would need proof. They don't outrightly assert that it cannot exist, merely that until proof is produced, believing in it is neither rational nor reasonable. Although the example is undoubtedly pretty damn stupid, I think that it still stands, heh. A strong atheist on the other hand, generally hold that gods cannot, do not and never have existed. Strong atheism makes the affirmative claim that no gods exist - full stop. Just as theism carries a burden of proof, I believe that strong atheism also carries this burden, as strong atheists are making an affirmative claim, just as theists do. Now, that being said - there are variations and crossovers. As I mentioned in my last post, people can be weak atheists with regards to certain gods, or even to gods in general, but be strong atheists when it comes to specific deity(s) - as I am. I believe that the Christian god as defined by and portrayed in the bible does not exist, period. The same goes for the Muslim god, the Jewish god, the Hindu gods and so forth. However, I don't extend this belief to gods in general, but rather lack belief in them until such time as proof of their existence is produced. It might seem that the two are in fact similar, and in a way, that's true. Both strong an weak atheists, when it comes down to it, don't believe in god. The distinction becomes more important when it comes to debating religion and the ideaof god in general, as the burden of proof idea is generally hashed over. I know that's not the best explanation, but if you were as tired as I am at the moment, you wouldn't make much sense either.

If you are actually in Australia, I can't imagine you are hardly as tired as I am. I'm in Central US where is now coming up on 7am and I have not slept yet (from the night before)...

(to the point, however)
yeah, I had a feeling that is what you meant. For me, the definition of a "common weak atheist" is too close to being an Agnostic to be worthy of true atheism. This I see reemphasized in what is listed as definition 1b. on dictionary.com "One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism." In those definitions, they define both Agnosticism and Atheism as including either a disbelief and/or a denial of any deity. Although similarly regarded terms, my personal feeling towards the differences between the two are very important.

To me, Atheism is a belief. But, because it is a belief in the lack of something, it is defined as disbelief.

On the other hand, Agnosticism is more a skepticism or doubt, no matter how grounded in research it may be in this case. The dictionary also defines it as saying it is impossible to know if a God exists. That is not enough of a full definition for me though. The problem is that in attempts to exclude Atheists from Agnostics, the definition actually includes many so-called Theists. You can BELIEVE in something without feeling it is possible to know it actually exists. That is basically the definition of faith. Someone could merely watch Contact with Jodie Foster to realize that premise. Intellectuals have an easy task of suggesting that people are stupid for believing in something that can't adequately prove. Almost everything is relative to humans in this world we have constructed for ourselves, though, and it becomes difficult to prove anything beyond our own accepted paradigms.

On a personal note, I almost have a problem reading explanations and definitions of such things because it automatically seems to limit my own stances because it refers to me as a "Theist" because I am Roman Catholic. I don't like the way that seems to put me in a little defined box that I don't feel I belong in. Suggesting that I disagree with various points of Christianity, on principle, and do not attend mass regularly allows others to pass me off as a "non-practicing Catholic" who therefore has no business in such discussions on faith, believes or Theology. I'd like to think that I actually have MORE of a place in such discussions than those who have chosen to follow blindly. This seems quite humorous to me anyway, since they are the same people that listened so intently when I used to "read at mass" as a Lector. Because of my own beliefs in that personal faith trumps convential beliefs, many seek to ex-communicate people like myself (John Kerry, anyone?) ...but others might take the complete opposite and consider me almost as a prophet (as long as I die young and tragically of course)

...this discussion on here has been interrupted offline by a discussion on Prime Rate and the projected movements in the middle term (3-5 years) ....so hopefully no one thinks I actually wish to be a "Theological Prophet" but rather, an Economic one!

p.s.-- my horrible misspellings and omissions of words and letters probably proves my exhaustion. As of right now I'm not going to go back and edit. This will be my last post for tonight though.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.