Atheists, quit confusing the two.

[Trakar]

Semantics

Indeed!

Semantics -

1.The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning

2.The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text

3.The study of language meaning

4.The study of meaning. It typically focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for.

 

[Trakar]

This at the very least . . .

At the least, in your subjective opinion, perhaps.

Still irrelevent to my response demonstrating an apparent lack of strong connection between "stupid" and "irrational," and does nothing that I can tell to support your own positive assertion of such a relationship.

 

[Trakar]

(...)
Good sense, common sense - essentially the same.
(...)

Good sense is subjective, in that those who think like we do are generally adjudged to have good sense, and those that disagree with us are generally adjudged to lack good sense.

Common sense, is generally composed of folklore and myth that are commonly accepted and acknowledged in the stead of logical and evidenced reason and understandings.

At the least these are the ways I find these terms to be most commonly used.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Indeed!

Semantics -

1.The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning

2.The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text

3.The study of language meaning

4.The study of meaning. It typically focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for.

How is this supporting your claim words like "belief" have universal meanings and we are in need of education as to their proper meaning?

This thread has died the death of drifting into an off topic semantics argument.

 

[dafydd]

How is this supporting your claim words like "belief" have universal meanings and we are in need of education as to their proper meaning?

This thread has died the death of drifting into an off topic semantics argument.

It's like getting into an argument with a talking thesaurus.

 

[Trakar]

How is this supporting your claim words like "belief" have universal meanings and we are in need of education as to their proper meaning?

Cite or reference to support this specific assertion?

I have simply explained my usage and supported those usages, with reference and explanations. It is others who are arguing (poorly and without compelling reference or support,...so far) that my usages and definitions are wrong.

 

[dafydd]

Cite or reference to support this specific assertion?

I have simply explained my usage and supported those usages, with reference and explanations. It is others who are arguing (poorly and without compelling reference or support,...so far) that my usages and definitions are wrong.

No. We just know what the words mean.

 

[tsig]

Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

Science is a philosophy of skepticism and empirical evidence, and as such has no ability to explore metaphysical questions, which have nothing to do with skepticism or empirical evidence, and everything to do with subjective experience.

They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.

Cite or reference to support this specific assertion?

I have simply explained my usage and supported those usages, with reference and explanations. It is others who are arguing (poorly and without compelling reference or support,...so far) that my usages and definitions are wrong.

I can't see how your post has anything to do with the OP.

Do you think metaphysical questions mean anything?

 

[I Am The Scum]

Cite or reference to support this specific assertion?

I have simply explained my usage and supported those usages, with reference and explanations. It is others who are arguing (poorly and without compelling reference or support,...so far) that my usages and definitions are wrong.

But when you assert that your meaning is superior to that of others, while failing to distinguish your use of the word from the beginning, using a colloquial definition as opposed to the one accepted in philosophy (that is the board we're on), and all for the sake of dragging the conversation down into a semantic quibble, then I am quite justified in believing that your communication skills could use some improvement.

 

[ynot]

But when you assert that your meaning is superior to that of others, while failing to distinguish your use of the word from the beginning, using a colloquial definition as opposed to the one accepted in philosophy (that is the board we're on), and all for the sake of dragging the conversation down into a semantic quibble, then I am quite justified in believing that your communication skills could use some improvement.

Well said. Communication is about others understanding what you mean and you understanding what others mean. It's not about being superior or more correct then others.

 

[Complexity]

I very quickly found this person's post unintelligible or, more accurately, painful to read. So painful, in fact, that I have arranged not to see too many of them.

It is almost as though some college students are playing with a new bot.

 

[Trakar]

I have simply explained my usage and supported those usages, with reference and explanations. It is others who are arguing (poorly and without compelling reference or support,...so far) that my usages and definitions are wrong.

No. We just know what the words mean.

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about.

 

[ynot]

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about.

Given you're apparently the only one that understands your "perfect example" you're merely talking to yourself.

 

[kerikiwi]

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about.

I believe you are mistaken in referring to it as a perfect example. The evidence suggests it is an imperfect example.

 

[Trakar]

I believe you are mistaken in referring to it as a perfect example. The evidence suggests it is an imperfect example.

I have explained my definitions and understandings and supported those with citation and reference. It isn't a matter of me attacking other's definitions, it is simply an issue of me defending my usages. I am not saying other's are wrong, I am merely defending my positions as acceptable and in accord with accepted and acknowledged definitions and understandings, against those who, without compelling reference or citation, are asserting that my usages and understandings are wrong.

Regardless, there seems to be little or no discussion left in this thread. So I will take my leave of it.

 

[dafydd]

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about.

Goodbye,oh superior one. The ignore button was made for egoists like you.

 

[punshhh]

I have explained my definitions and understandings and supported those with citation and reference. It isn't a matter of me attacking other's definitions, it is simply an issue of me defending my usages. I am not saying other's are wrong, I am merely defending my positions as acceptable and in accord with accepted and acknowledged definitions and understandings, against those who, without compelling reference or citation, are asserting that my usages and understandings are wrong.

Regardless, there seems to be little or no discussion left in this thread. So I will take my leave of it.

It seems the athiests have abandoned their attempts to claim they don't continuosly confuse the two.

 

[dafydd]

It seems the athiests have abandoned their attempts to claim they don't continuosly confuse the two.

The two what? He continuously made up his own definitions of words,just like you do. Woos always do that.

 

[godless dave]

Only true if the premise of dispute is based upon upon a false dichotomy,

No, reductio ad absurdum is useful in far more situations than that.

You gave an example of something you believe in based - by your own admission - on absolutely no evidence. I gave another example of something that someone could believe in that is not based on any evidence does not contradict any evidence either.

 

[godless dave]

Personally, saying "I believe...", means "I've considered/thought about a subject, and see no evidence that contradicts or rules out this potential." This doesn't mean that I "know" this to be true or beyond reasonable doubt, which would require supportive empiric evidence or other forms of compelling evidences. "Believe," to me, is an expression of subjectivity and qualified doubt, not confidence.

OK, well when you use a word in a different way than every other speaker of English on the planet, you're going to run into confusion.