how can atheists use the word "god"?

yes my point entirely. I do not use the word "god" except when i make a reference to the fact the word is meaningless. except i would go further and say to you that I reject the word "god" since whatever definition of it you make cannot be supported with any empirical evidence to suggest your next argument which is....?
and leading up to the statement that "god" the thing which you have no empirical evidence of, did some other shit which cannot possibly have taken place unless you believe your assertion that there is such a thing as god.
Since you utter the word "god" and make the claim that god exists my answer would be "then show me god exists in a way that i will also KNOW "god" exists and until you do we cannot move to any further claims you have" Until you can show me god all other argument about god is senseless drivel and infact until you do then even the word "god" is senseless drivel

 

Well, in the English language that we are speaking, the word "god" has a definition, as do all the other words you just read. If you want to stay with the idea that the word "god" is meaningless, You will need to frame your argument better, because so far, this thread is six pages of semantics.

You used the word "god" several times and at least two different ways in the
post I'm quoting, and every time you use it in the context of an intelligent designer, you disagree with yourself.

 

I have no definition of the term "god" in the same way I have no definition of the term "jkllkhsiigudbhudhouhdohd" if, infact, what you mean is some kind of entity which has the ability to affect things in the universe. However we can all agree that if we want we can give some meaning to the word "jkllkhsiigudbhudhouhdohd" in some kind of theoretical sense or as a label to mean somethingelse, such as programmers use when they say
let x=1
let y=2
let z=x+y

or another way such as we say "let jkllkhsiigudbhudhouhdohd mean a bright green thing which is not a triangle" but yes we could agree on a theoretical situation in which there is some alternative universe in which such a being as "god" (whatever we agree that means)exists and move on from that with deductive reasoning but no there is no empirical basis in this universe for saying "god" is a word which means a being that exists and can influence world affairs. However I see such a theoretical argument of alternative universes as being somewhat pointless since the effects of theism are having negative impact on the world in a way which we cannot afford the luxury of academic debate on the subject any longer. Incase you hadnt realised people are losing life and limbs due to the insanity of those who claim "god" exists and while we debate your theory for another 1000 years we are not solving the problem that religious zealots are infecting the minds of children with ridiculous ideas that lead to bigotry and war

atheists have debated long enough and its time that the world listened to reason. I am well aware of theist arguments and reject them. I am well aware of atheist arguments and find them to pander to religious values

 

There are ways to verify conformity....for example: a coherent response to my post will tell me you understood the meaning of what I typed. We have so many languages because different words can and do take on the same meaning, and that's the point....

We have to agree on what to call a chair to use the word. We have to agree about (at least) a general definition of a god to use the word god.

"jkllkhsiigudbhudhouhdohd" is not an english word, "god" is an English word.

Verify that you understand this sentence by typing 1234 and you have your empiricism.

 

jkllkhsiigudbhudhouhdohd can mean whatever we agree it means - a chair is simply a chair because we agree its a chair, language is simply a common agreement upon a shared principle, that once we agree what a duck is, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, in all likelihood it probably is a duck but closer examination would give us certainty

 

Exactly.

Slow down there..

A chair would be a chair whether we agreed about what to call it or not, just like the earth is round
despite the catholic church 300 years ago saying otherwise.

Yes.

 

No there is a difference and the difference is that what constitues a chair is not fixed but what constitutes the shape of the earth is fixed.
providing we can agree what to call geometric shapes, observation (closer examination) will tell us roughly what shape an object is. That is a form of apriori knowledge - or prior knowledge of a thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
I know what a sphere is, becasue we can say "let us call a sphere a rounded object extended in 3 dimensions of space" and if upon detailed examination an object looks like a sphere and fits the formal definition of a spherical object that we agreed then we can call it a sphere. I can show others my observations and the method employed to observe a thing and say "look its a sphere" and if they too cannot doubt their observations and cannot doubt the method by which the observations are made then they too must conclude "its a sphere" then it must be TRUE THAT it is a sphere. Ignoring for the moment that observations may lead one to an error of conclusion but that is the purpose of science to defeat errors of conclusions based on observations. But its not the same with chairs. A chair may have 3 legs or 4 or none. It may have a back to it or not, it may have some kind of fitting which permanently attaches itself to the floor. I can make a chair from a wooden crate, but if the only definition of a chair is something i can sit on and rest my legs a while, when did the crate become a chair?
some things have a definition defined by their use rather than by appearance Only last week I designed a chair that looks like no other before it yet until i sat on it the object was merely some plastic in the corner of my room. The definition of "a chair" is constantly changing" You will know its purpose if you come to my house because you will say "what is that"? and i will say "its a chair", any further observation will be whether it fits the description, as it may be a bad chair if it breaks, etc etc etc (etc means it may be a comfy chair and good, or fit for the purpose of a chair, etc etc etc)

 

i'm aware of this, it's why i used it - einstein has stated his atheism, despite the yowlings of apologeticists

but he still used the word

of course he was kinda dumb and all . . .

:mickey: [is "apologeticists" a word? wtf]

 

but he wasnt using the word to construct a formal argument with which to criticise theism. If einstein used the word "god" and proposed that "god" does not play dice with the universe a formal critique of atheism would have to show that "god" does not play dice with the universe but since the word "god" has no meaning then his sentence surely can only mean "It is debateable that god does not play dice with the universe providing of course there is a god, which i do not believe, so my sentence is meaningless"
Obviously einstein had his meaningless moments too and was not using the sentence to either deny or confirm the existence of a magical being but it was a cynical attack to say the word "god" because clearly einstein was of the opinion the universe had no deity that created it and was purely a sneer at religions that state the universe was created by a god. God does not play dice with the universe. interpretation - The universe is a series of causally connected objects and events

what he actually said was
Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.

 

who's he?

I think it is funny to be arguing about what a prophet meant.

 

I agree, and thats why i didnt treat the statement with much respect. Too much conjecture contained within it

 

"Apologists." No, no, don't thank me, I'm only too happy to contribute something meaningful to this discussion.

 

but i'm specifically referring to those who practice apologetics [this is a word] and don't wish to infuse my point with ambiguity

fuck it, i'm a word mint

 

We're on the same page. Technically speaking, an apologist is someone who practices apologetics. Admittedly there's a loosier-goosier meaning for the word, but your context made your meaning clear, imho. But if you're really afraid of being misunderstood, then by all means, make up your own stinkin words! Just be aware that there are linguistic purists like me lurking in the shadows, ready to pounce...

 

Or linguistic slurrists like me.

 

No word is safe around thedope - nefarious molester and impregnator of words...

 

If you want to see a full discussion of why all religious dialogue is nonesense you might read "Language, Truth, and Logic", by A.J.Ayer.

as a sumary of the position Ayer adopted, I believe the one in wikipedia will do the job

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_J_Ayer

WELL! I CERTAINLY NEVER KNEW THIS ABOUT HIM !

 

You just have to love it when people offer quotes to prove their argument right, that prove their argument wrong.

 

I rarely argue with the religious, just as I rarely argue with those who have an unfortunate deficit of mind

 

I guess you don't argue with yourself very much then.

Re-read his works before you embarrass yourself further...

Ayer rejected the concept of god... and didn't think discussing whether or not god existed was meaningful.

He did NOT reject the word god.

Of course, this whole topic had it's absurdity pointed out by you in your first post where you contradticted the very point your were making.

Throughout this whole thread, your actions have proven either your hypocricy or your stupidity, as you kept using the word that you claim has zero meaning to you.

This is the distinction that you seem to have a hard time grasping (although I really believe it is you just being a troll). Using a word does not mean you agree with the concept behind it. It just means you have enough intelligence to understand abstract concepts.

Over and over people have pointed out how you have been wrong right from the start of this, using example of other things that don't exist that we have words for and use.

You yourself have used the word in these discussions, over and over. All the while claiming that the word has no meaning.

I can only conclude that either you are a troll or you are truly one of the one of the poorest thinkers I have ever had the misfortune to run across.