Atheist "identity"

Fragment of a discussion from User talk:Armondikov
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I direct you to this:

"...as if it's requesting I identify as something that I don't do." That's a bit ironic coming from an atheist.

Laughing.gif

The point is, can you make an "identity" around that; as in, how do you communicate the answer to "so, what do you believe?" and find like-minded people to group yourself with (insomuch that you should do that).

I think atheists actually do have something politically in common; they're atheists. But this is only in the same sense you have "Christian" thrown around the political sphere to unite people. Penn Jillette briefly notes a point not too dissimilar here - except he concludes, and I agree, that if you're just interested in truth and discussion then you wouldn't try to unite people that way because it would be dishonest, just like uniting people under "Christian".

I'll see about writing a Part II type thing to address this more clearly, but in short I don't see conflating different philosophies to be a problem if, in fact, they're the same or you believe both in some degree and you see them as related. Though it can be a bit chicken-and-egg; are you an atheist because you're a naturalist or a naturalist because you were an atheist? For me I became an atheist out of apathy, became a philosophical naturalist through atheism other mechanisms, and stayed an atheist because of this. It all depends on how well you intend to answer that question "So what do you believe?" and what's the most useful answer - and there's another can of worms as to how context can completely change what is the most useful answer there. The ubiquity of religion gives "I'm an atheist" quite a bit of meaning, but only in the context that we're implicitly aware of what religion is. This is why atheists aligning against the "religious" have some degree of identity. On its own, however, "I'm an atheist" doesn't mean that much.

Scarlet A.pngbomination08:51, 13 December 2011

The whole thing smells a bit funny to me. I guess I'm a bit of a curmudgeon because I "deconverted" before the whole "new" atheism thing blew up. (Get off my lawn! etc.) I also have a problem with conflating the two because I don't see them as necessarily related -- I became an atheist and philosophical naturalist via radical skepticism, so I'm coming from a totally different place there.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)18:04, 13 December 2011
Edited by author.
Last edit: 03:22, 14 December 2011

I think you only have a problem with conflating the labels, not the concepts I'm talking about. I'll try and lay it out a little straighter, I don't think it's so much conflating incompatible ideas so much as evolving one into the other. (note, this is a lot longer than intended and may get bumped off to the blog or an essay)

Firstly, I find atheism to be a somewhat useless label. It conveys little information except that 90% of the world subscribes to an arbitrary belief system involving supernatural superstitions and 10% of the world goes against that. Without religion, atheism ceases to have a meaning. Just like "not playing Jurblung" doesn't have much meaning unless a lot of people play Jurblung - and they don't, I just made that up there and then. So having a word for "people who don't play Jurblung" is pointless, it conveys no information. Atheism does have meaning, but only because religion exists. The trouble is, this "religion" thing becomes something akin to "I know it when I see it" and so the use of the word "atheism" to convey a lot of meaningful information is somewhat reduced. As I've said elsewhere, even people who say "I believe in God" could be counted as atheists (at least, implicitly) if their concept and image of God and religion don't match the rest of the adult population. To say otherwise would be to say that the statement "I believe in God" automatically makes you religious regardless of what you mean by it.

I basically want to get to the bottom of what I mean when I say "I am an atheist" - and this will be what I mean because I'm clarifying my thoughts, someone else may choose to do the same and come up with a different answer, I would encourage this. There's no sense in a bunch of people using the same label for their ideas if their ideas don't match! (And yes, I've done this point to death) The "I am an atheist" statement otherwise just depends on how you define "atheist", and arguing from definitions is, well, boring and doesn't really prove anything.

So I want to identify a way that conveys my actual belief without requiring the context of religion espoused in above I.e., if I was to leave this universe and re-enter an alternate one where religion just plain and simply didn't exist it would still be meaningful.

Imagine I did it the lazy way around, call it the "traditional" way, and said "well, I define an atheist as someone who doesn't believe in any god, including the Abrahamic YHWH(s), Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and every other deity from A to Z (and 0-9, !, ", £, $ or any other character". This is exactly as our article puts it. Well, the problem here is that I'm still "defining" the word atheism rather than communicating what I mean by it, and even worse I'm still doing it in the context of other religions. Now, let's propose something silly for a moment. Suppose someone said "the god I worship is Barack Obama" (told you it would be silly). Well, my definition says that I can't believe in Barack Obama (I don't believe in any god), even though Barack Obama is clearly a real person - he's human shaped, I can see him, hear him, read his words, see him interact with others and potentially interact with him personally. That's absurd, but it's what my "definition", as it stands, demands of me. You could propose that my definition actually means "I don't believe Barack Obama is a god" BUT that's not "lacking a belief in any god A to Z...", it's simply denying that something real can be a god. I'd then have to change my definition to include "the god-like qualities of a real entity" or somthing like that. It's just shifting around categories and fairly ad hoc and is also moving the goalposts somewhat. Mostly, it's very, very messy. It's more caveats, more definitions, and we grow close to "I know it when I see it". I don't think, at a fundamental level, this "Obama is a god" example is any more or less absurd than people discussing whether Buddhists are atheists and how that pertains to an anti-religious stance held by atheists (which is a trope I'm sure we've all seen).

So, let's question why I would deny that Obama is a god, along with denying the existence of supernatural gods too boot. Well, the way I find myself trying to unite these ideas is simply empirical observation: what do I expect from these assertions? If there were supernatural gods, I'd expect prayer to work better than chance, and for miracles to happen, or for booming voices in the sky and evidence of intelligent design like us not biting our own cheeks, being born technically 6 months prematurely and so on. If Obama was a god I'd expect similar supernatural powers - at least lightning bolts from the fingertips but I'd probably settle for less if you persuaded me that they were suitably impressive. Then I'd not so much "believe that Obama was a god" as much "admit that Obama had these powers" - because they matched up with empirical observation. On the other hand, if someone proposed that Obama was a god but displayed only human characteristics then... well, that assertion carries with it no useful information. We may as well say Obama doesn't play Jurblung and call it a remarkable fact.

Here's the real important but difficult to explain bit: I'm not saying that "expectation of empirical observation" is what I mean by "true" (or what one could call "philosophical naturalism"), nor do I suggest that this is my definition of it, or my explanation of it - it's simply that this is what I'm talking about. Of course, "true" "real" "existent" are nice words that I could use, but I can't be sure that everyone agrees that these mean "detectable by observation". So I'm avoiding mental short-cuts like "atheism" and "rationalism" and cutting straight to the chase of what I mean and what I think. I don't mean that this is what "true" means, nor what "real" means, nor what "rational" means, nor what "atheism" means - it is simply an end in itself. Because you may well want to say "real" is something different (and I do pity the sort of people who do pull "but by definition" arguments, as if changing the definition will change my mind), but then we wouldn't be talking about the same thing, would we? So instead of "beliefs should produce empirical expectations" being a definition of some kind, it's a statement that I make that I value as part of my identity of beliefs. I expect my beliefs (simply statements I assert) to produce expectations - end of. If they don't then I don't find a use for them. Not because I define them as not real, but simply because they don't produce expectations. Call it what you like, these are simply the values I wish to endorse.

Now, you might say that this exercise is rather pointless; but is it any less pointless than, say, arguing about the definition of "religion" to prove that "atheism is not a religion"?

All I've done is moved on from using "atheism" as a term. Hopefully this explains the thought process enough to convince you I'm not just conflating incompatible and distinct ideas of "atheism" and "philosophical naturalism" - just that when pushed for what I actually think, I don't need to make such a distinction.

Scarlet A.pngpostate03:08, 14 December 2011

Anyway, it is now stupid o'clock in the morning and between writing that and talking to a brick wall on Facebook I'm pooped.

Scarlet A.pngsshole03:11, 14 December 2011
 

Or you could split them into two entities and say that you believe in Obama the man, but not Obama the god. (Ain't philosophy grand?)

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)03:24, 14 December 2011

But why split it up and add extra convolution when it can be far far simpler? I have no reason to *believe* in either: I can simply ask "what are the consequences of your assertion and do we actually observe them?" and see if that's true or not.

"Obama the god" and "Obama the man" require us to define what "god" and "man" are first, which is a distracting issue. Far better to simply inquire as to what someone expects to see of the guy: superpowered finger lightning, for instance? If we don't see it, your assertion is false. End of story.

If someone was to say "Obama is a god" and then follow that with "err... well, nothing really" to the request for real-world expectations then they can say "Obama is a god" all they like, as much as they can say "Obama is a sausage" or "Obama is actually a woman" or "Obama is a Muslim who wasn't born in America so isn't eligible to be President". But they've simply said nothing of interest or of value because it conveys no useful information.

Scarlet A.pngbomination13:13, 14 December 2011

There you go. I think you might be expecting too much from single words.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)17:32, 14 December 2011

Perhaps I am. So why use 1 word when 15 will say what you really mean?

All I really expect, is for people (myself included) to be able to explain themselves without resorting to jargon-filled tropes. I recently read something to the effect of "you can call yourself an agnostic but you're still an atheist". Or even better, I read a free software rant that said "Microsoft's fonts aren't free, they're costless!". And I just thought, wait... what?!?

Scarlet A.pngpathetic17:53, 14 December 2011

"So why use 1 word when 15 will say what you really mean?" I see that, especially as regards that block of text upscreen. Conversely, conciseness is also a virtue.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)17:57, 14 December 2011

Why?

Scarlet A.pngnarchist18:02, 14 December 2011

See what I did there? Yeah baby, I'm that good!

Scarlet A.pnggnostic18:03, 14 December 2011
Nebuchadnezzar (talk)18:05, 14 December 2011

Cute little phrases are nice, but don't really mean much on their own.

Scarlet A.pngsshole18:15, 14 December 2011
Nebuchadnezzar (talk)18:23, 14 December 2011

I know, but that's more a practicality than a virtue, right?

Scarlet A.pngpathetic19:45, 14 December 2011

Try reading some Ayn Rand if you think I'm wrong.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)19:54, 14 December 2011

Touché.

Scarlet A.pngmoral01:50, 15 December 2011
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Actually, I could turn that upside down and say that I don't expect too much of a single word. Anyone using a single word probably expects too much of it. If you think "atheism" completely sums up all your beliefs, then... well you know what they say: "if your opinion can fit on a bumper sticker..."

Scarlet A.pngd hominem18:05, 14 December 2011
Nebuchadnezzar (talk)18:08, 14 December 2011

I don't get it. Is the point that you pick a word and then argue over its definition and etymology for hours on end?

Scarlet A.pngd hominem18:13, 14 December 2011

No, the point is that it's an intellectual shorthand for a cluster of ideas. If you get rid of this, you'll just be producing hugely redundant and repetitive blocks of text as above. However, these concepts can be "unpacked" if a problem is encountered in the conversation.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)18:20, 14 December 2011

Yes. That would be the point if you come across a problem. I recently saw a problem with people arguing over whether someone was agnostic or not - so I just proposed them just saying what their belief was.

Scarlet A.pngtheist19:47, 14 December 2011

See, that's a situation where it's necessary. It's all about context.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)19:53, 14 December 2011

I would agree there. Actually, I like the "unpacking" term a little better. Though that would run the risk of "hey, let's define our term". I'm still firmly with Yudkowsky that this isn't the best solution.

Scarlet A.pngpostate20:02, 14 December 2011

??? Defining your term isn't the best solution? Then what is?

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)20:09, 14 December 2011

The linguist in me is shivering at the "don't define a word, just avoid it" concept. Just define it, then use it as you defined it. It's how every single thing we communicate is done, every day, unless you are talking art or music. If you don't define something, then the symbolic language humans have created ceases to be effective, cause everyone is avoiding so-called "problematic" words.

Now whether or not you are an atheist is a different question. My answer depends on teh context, how deeply people care about distinctions, etc. But isn't that the way with everything?

Pink mowse.pngGodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage20:48, 14 December 2011

I agree (but only partially). We're getting back into the concept of rationalist taboo again, and, once again, I have to say it depends on the context. Sometimes there are terms that are so loaded it's easier to just avoid them altogether.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)21:00, 14 December 2011

I don't know what we are doing. I'm just avoiding work. Loaded terms are intended to be loaded terms. But that doesn't apply to things like "religion" "god", "atheist" which are all useful terms that can be quickly and fairly precisely defined at the beginning of a conversation.

But mostly I don't care other than reading what sounds like the start of a very long conversation for ADK, dealing with someone who doesn't care what ADK has to say, only what that someone himself wants to think.

Those conversations will not be improved by avoiding or using loaded language; avoiding or using precise language - they will only be improved by avoiding using any language and saying "nertz" or making buzzing noises. ;-)

Pink mowse.pngGodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage21:34, 14 December 2011
 

Here's the context that made me wonder about atheism as a useful term - well, strictly "agnosticism", but there's always that "oh, but atheists should always be agnostic!!" crap going on.

Someone says "I'm agnostic, because I think we'll never know if there's a God"

Everyone applauds such open minded fairness. After all, you have to be soooo deep to be open minded.

Then I say "wait, you say we'll never know?"

They say "yes". Well, they didn't, I cut that step out. I'm a little drunk, this could be fun to explain from now on.

So I add "so, you'll never know if God is real. Therefore there's no way of detecting God."

"Right"

"So there's no way that God can make a meaningful interaction with the world?"

"Erm..."

"So what is the fucking point in believing in God?"

"Derp"

Then someone else like chimes in and says "hey, so you must be an atheist then!!!"

And I'm like "bitches, please. Just shut up."

So basically, yes, "agnosticism" seems to be used as a loaded term. It's a term that says "hey guys, I'm totally open minded about God because I'm cool and open minded and intellectual and look at how open minded I am". When really it's saying "actually, I've just given undue privilege to a hypothesis with fuck all evidence for it. I just want the connotations of being open minded despite having no belief whatsofuckingever in God or gods or any of that crap but am too scared of putting my bollocks on the line to say so."

Though why a girl would be scared of putting her bollocks on the line is beyond me.

I should stop steam-of-conciousnessing... it never ends well.

Scarlet A.pngtheist01:37, 15 December 2011
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

My problem with all that is that your identity suddenly becomes associated with me, just because I don't believe in any deities or supernatural forces. And I have some very different opinions than you do. Please find a different name, and let atheism remain atheism.

User:Brxbrx/sig20:11, 14 December 2011

inb4 OMG BRXBRX INSERTING HIMSELF INTO ANOTHER CONVERSATION

User:Brxbrx/sig20:13, 14 December 2011

Oh noez, someone is trying to steal my label!

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)21:25, 14 December 2011

What the fuck are you on about? You get that there is no one definition for any word, right Brx? That humans define what they are talking about, given context, given participants, etc. and that no one has any right to say to any other speaker "keep your hands off my words".


course, nebs comment was much better. ;-)

Pink mowse.pngGodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage21:30, 14 December 2011

Ah, but No True Scotsman...

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)21:35, 14 December 2011

No true Scotsman has ever said those words, or they wouldn't be a true scotsman, therefore by teh face of it's own fallacy, there being no true scots, to every have said that there are true scots, the No True Scotsman fails on its own petard. (? right term?)


And with that, I must find myself some haggas for xmas. oh dear and all....

Pink mowse.pngGodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage21:43, 14 December 2011

"Hoist by its own petard." But yes, there are no true Scotsman because "Scotsman" is a social construction. Logic refuted!

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)21:45, 14 December 2011
 

That paragraph is headache inducing.

ʤɱ atheist22:04, 14 December 2011
 
 

Troll

User:Brxbrx/sig21:57, 14 December 2011

I sense a disturbance in the irony meters. A really big one.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)22:33, 14 December 2011

Jelp mi ma bran hust erxpladed.

ArchieGoodwin (talk)22:37, 14 December 2011

It's as if millions of voices of trolls cried out, and then were suddenly silenced.

Pink mowse.pngGodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage22:43, 14 December 2011
 
 
 
What the fuck are you on about? You get that there is no one definition for any word, right Brx? That humans define what they are talking about, given context, given participants, etc. and that no one has any right to say to any other speaker "keep your hands off my words".

Here's a thought.

You think we're all speaking "English" right now? Well, you do some language-y stuff so I assume yes.

But....

You then say we all have our own definitions based on context and ideas and, even though you disagree with Yudkowsky, you know we have our own connotations brought up by words. I mean, you dismiss some of it as mental masturbation but the whole "sneaking in connotations" post is exactly what you mean by your "pyramid" example.

So, we all have our own thoughts based on what words on used. It might differ between Alice and Bob. Some of it overlaps, some of it clashes. Overlap = good, we're talking the same thing. Clash = we disagree and get confused and have our own mini-HCM inside our own head.

So... the fact we're all speaking "English" is really an illusion caused by the fact we have more overlap than not. We both speak English, even natively, but it doesn't mean that when I say "pyramid" it conjures identical images (I've already said I think of the sport from Battlestar Galactica.). But it does mean we have more overlap than clash.

Or am I still on a different page to everyone else?

Scarlet A.pnggnostic01:43, 15 December 2011

But you've coopted a term and given it new meaning. I can't just say "I'm an atheist" anymore because people will think I spend my free time ragging on religion because of people like you and douchebags like Richard Dawkins.

Make up a new word, please. I'm tired of saying "I don't have a religion," and having to say "I don't believe in God"- because that last one I inevitably have to append with "or any deities or supernatural forces" because it doesn't express the fact that I'm an atheist.

User:Brxbrx/sig01:50, 15 December 2011

How about you make up your own word.

Scarlet A.pngd hominem01:53, 15 December 2011

"Asshole."

It may not mean what "atheist," but it does mean "Brxbrx."

Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.01:56, 15 December 2011

Who's the asshole, me, or the guy who's following me around and flaming me?

User:Brxbrx/sig01:58, 15 December 2011

Out of context, the latter. With context, the former.

Scarlet A.pnggnostic02:05, 15 December 2011
 

It's less me following you around and more me shamelessly spamming myself across every possible conversation :-) And what's the most common entry point in every conversation? You are.

Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.02:06, 15 December 2011

Are you saying that I spam myself across every conversation? Because I don't. There is quite a large number of ongoing conversations on this wiki that I have not made myself a part of, for a number of reasons:

  1. No clue what they're talking about
  2. Don't care about what they're talking about
  3. The conversation involves people I loathe
  4. The conversation is obviously personal (though they probably shouldn't be doing it in public)
  5. I have nothing to add- no jokes, no nods
  6. I'm not there to notice it

Go look at the Saloon Bar, the number one hub for conversation on this wiki. Tell me how often I interject there.

User:Brxbrx/sig02:13, 15 December 2011

A poor choice of words on my part. To rephrase: you're a relatively common entry point for conversations I wouldn't otherwise have legitimate reasons for joining.

Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.02:24, 15 December 2011
 
 
 
 

I was here first, as were many others. Atheism in and of itself means lack of religion, or of gods if you want to be finicky with the roots. Giving it more meaning than that is crapping on people.

User:Brxbrx/sig01:57, 15 December 2011

Point to the part where I say "atheism = ...."

If you actually read and understood, my entire point is to move beyond unproductive labeling, which includes "atheist". Sorry, did I not spell this out in words short enough for you?

Scarlet A.pngd hominem02:03, 15 December 2011

Okay, I'll admit it: I skimmed through your post. But reading through walls of text is pathologically difficult for me. I figured that you making an identity for yourself as an atheist would mean positing atheism as whatever it is you are.

User:Brxbrx/sig02:08, 15 December 2011

The opposite, actually.

Scarlet A.pnggnostic02:10, 15 December 2011

Alrighty then.

User:Brxbrx/sig02:13, 15 December 2011

Again, what the fuck are you on about Brx? "atheism means lack of religion" (well, actually, not at all. most buddhists are atheists), or gods... and anything beyond is BS"

since when do words mean "what I say they mean, so there?" Does aweful really mean "filled with awe" any more? does voir dire really mean "truth saying"? Is a chef really the chief?

Pink mowse.pngGodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage06:01, 15 December 2011
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

@adk, Again, I go back to being a linguist and not really a philosophier, but I don't see that language works in this seemingly mysterious way you seem to be describing. When I say context defines things, or say that we have statistical frames working in our little heads, I'm not saying that milk can mean "dog". It means milk. to you, that may include powdered milk, and to me, maybe not, but the brain haddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddoiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii=jmkkkkkkles

Pink mowse.pngGodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage05:52, 15 December 2011

I'm trying hard to avoid text walls, but evidently failing.

"Milk" probably wouldn't represent the same thing as "dog" - at least, it's very unlikely to. The cluster of four-legged, furry, barking objects in the real world called "dog" probably doesn't have much overlap with the cluster of wet, white liquidy stuff called "milk". I agree it's about knowing the audience because communication is a two-way process. We're both members of RationalWiki, we've both written things on skepticism and debunking, we read the same stuff on WIGO. The chances are that if I said "I'm an atheist" to you we'd know what we're talking about. This is fine, and we don't clash.

It is about what you infer from context, but that requires you to A) recognise the context and B) know precisely what you're implying, and what others are inferring. If you can't do this then... well you will clash and fail.

But I think there's one other important bit of context; what you intend to do with your statement. The other person you're talking to is important, and knowing what they're inferring from you is vital, but I think your actual intention is even more crucial to getting the idea across.

"I'm an atheist" is fine if you want to join an Atheist Society just because you're looking for somewhere to chat and hang out, or if you want someone to direct you to books like The God Delusion. It is not, however, very useful if you want to say something like "as atheists we should..." I think is a little more important because I don't think it is "written on their faces" when someone isn't actually inferring the same thing as you. If everyone agrees on their standard of evidence and logic then surely they would agree, A therefore B should be agreed upon by everyone, if half the people think A therefore Not B, then where is the problem - in the logic or in what A is?

Scarlet A.pngnarchist11:38, 15 December 2011

You are generally better at saying what I was thinking. what you intend to do is critical. It's why loaded language exists. The intent of the speaker is to create images, create associations, and knowingly create false impressions. It's not a failure on the part of language or of the speaker. Sadly, it's actually a success.

Again, I have had philo classes over the course of my life, but am not really skilled in being a philosopher - in thinking that way. I think about language as a functional tool, not as a hindrance to communication. I generally assume that most people own their ideas, and the attempts to communicate them are usually successes. even if what they are trying to communicate includes being intentionally manipulative.

I also approach this having taught classes for years, on somewhat complex ideas about language and religion. at no time in those classes did i have to say "ok, you are confused about the word religion, so I need to use a different word". I walked in, explained my position, then expanded. So again, the idea that language or particular words hinder real understanding or indepth exploration of whatever topic you wish to explore seems counter intuitive to everything I've seen or done.

Are you going to have problems when talking about atheism with a die-hard christian fundi? Yes. But I disagree that the fail point (or fix point) is teh word choice. It is the willingness of the other party to use agreed upon meanings. And in that context, it does not matter if you choose different words or not - if he or she chooses not to hear you, they simply will not hear you.

Pink mowse.pngGodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage14:27, 15 December 2011

The word choice is only the failure point if it fails to conjure up the intended images for someone else. Whether it be a single word, or a longer phrase. I don't think it's a problem with a piece language (or symbolism) or the person using it. Where I think the problem is the translation between the two.

Scarlet A.pnggnostic15:12, 15 December 2011

Totally context:

Someone I follow on FB was asked on one of those anonymous question things: "what is the most adult thing you've ever done?" The fact is that she's an alternative model... so you can kind of see where that could lead.

Scarlet A.pnggnostic16:16, 15 December 2011

Yes, but that is a fallacy or *intention* of the writer. Written communication, where you do not know the audience you will find, is more laden with potholes than spoken or "one to one" communication with an instant audience that cannot change without your awareness. (video also makes this one-on-one communication problematic. as does the modern invention of editing out the context and leaving only naked words).

When you tweet or facebook, you are not really communicating the way our language evolved. so yes, you do need new rules. But I still think those rules come secondary to the fact that some audience members do not want to know, do not care to know what you mean only what they want you to mean.

Pink mowse.pngGodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage19:04, 15 December 2011
But I still think those rules come secondary to the fact that some audience members do not want to know, do not care to know what you mean only what they want you to mean.

QFT.

But, the trick is to give them no choice in how they interpret you. Hence you have to be aware of what they think and adapt to it.

So if someone says "you can't prove prayer with science", and won't listen no matter how many times you describe what science is, break it down into something else and make them follow you.

Scarlet A.pngsshole20:25, 15 December 2011
 
 
 
 

Uh-oh, this is starting to sound like linguistic qualia.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)18:11, 15 December 2011
 
 

sorry, that was a cat. she does not speak language.

Ok, ADK, when you say something that might be ambiguous, your mind knows that, and you know to feed different clues to the listener OR fuck with them, as your brain wants. When I talk to you about atheist, I don't worry that you don't know what I mean. When I talk to my boss about atheism, i'm pretty specific in what I'm trying to convey. So knowing your audience, should tell you if you need to find new terms, or if you need modifiers. You really don't even have to worry about it, cause it will be (in most cases) written right on their faces.

Granted, you do offer examples where it fails, and where people spend hours trying to pin point exactly where navy begins and blue grey ends.

Pink mowse.pngGodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage05:55, 15 December 2011
 
 
 
 

What?

Scarlet A.pngsshole01:28, 15 December 2011