Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Not all words describe some objective aspect of reality, where did you get this nonsense OP?
New words are made up every day and old words die. All words are made up and many do not describe an objective anything. Meaning of words change with time and place and can have multiple meanings.
"Not all words describe some objective aspect of reality, where did you get this nonsense OP?"
Give me an example of one that doesn't. All words have an underlying and agreed upon meaning, which is why we can communicate. If the words themselves disappeared or changed, the ideas and realities that they once described would persist.
Ever heard of idioms? How about colloquium? Metaphor? Any figurative language?
Here's a concrete example of a word that doesn't describe some objective aspect of reality. I just used it. Concrete.
In this sense, concrete is not taken to mean hardened cement. It means something entirely different. Feel stupid yet? You should.
What objective aspect of reality does the word "god" describe?
"a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality Greek gods of love and war"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
I'm assuming you're a materialist, so the idea or definition of god is a piece of information stored in your brain and we've linked the letter combination "god" to this piece of information.
Or if you're a Platonist, then "god" exists as an abstract object in the same way mathematical concepts and numbers do.
Regardless, if words didn't have objective meanings then it'd be impossible to communicate through language.
You have deviously changed from "objective aspect of reality" to "objective meaning"
Bwahaha, troll exposed.
Reading the bible Jesus seems to represent a gay male more than a heterosexual male. Paul is a classic gay man in denial.
"Reading the bible Jesus seems to represent a gay male more than a heterosexual male. Paul is a classic gay man in denial."
I fucking knew it!
I mean, Jesus was penetrated like four times by some Roman guys. Just saying.
"Regardless, if words didn't have objective meanings then it'd be impossible to communicate through language."
Well they don't have objective meanings, they have primary definitions based on common usage. This can and sometimes does change over time as well.
So I think your claim is wrong.
"You have deviously changed from "objective aspect of reality" to "objective meaning"
Bwahaha, troll exposed."
I told you where the word "god" exists. For the Platonist, it exists as an abstract object. For the materialist, the information or idea of "god" is encoded in the brains of people. And the word "god" is a pointer to this abstract object or piece of information.
Regardless, it definitely exists and is part of reality and the word "god" refers to this aspect of reality. And me saying words have objective meaning is just another way of saying that words are linked to objective aspects of reality, which makes communication possible.
@mysuernamekthk
You said : "me saying words have objective meaning is just another way of saying that words are linked to objective aspects of reality, which makes communication possible."
Baesd on that and on the fact that people who do not consider themselves to be male or female and do not act as their biological sex is "supposed to" act are an objective part of reality, then the word "zhe" would be the word describing that part of objective reality and will correspond to that kind of people. There are languages with neutral articles and pronouns. English is not the only language in the world.
Just tell me objective aspect of reality god is.
"Just tell me objective aspect of reality god is."
I did.
"god" is an arrangement of letters, a word. That arrangement of letters exists in many different forms, but all these forms match the pattern "god," at least in the English language. This allows us to convey information to each other by writing the pattern "god." So the physical manifestation of this pattern exists in itself as an objective aspect of reality. Moreover, the information encoded by this pattern also exists in the brains of people; and if you're a Platonist, then it exists as an abstract object. Therefore, "god" exists as an objective aspect of reality in at least two ways.
If you still don't understand, then this would seem to indicate that you're out of your depth.
"zhe" is an arrangement of letters, a word. That arrangement of letters exists in many different forms, but all these forms match the pattern "zhe," at least in the English language. This allows us to convey information to each other by writing the pattern "zhe." So the physical manifestation of this pattern exists in itself as an objective aspect of reality. Moreover, the information encoded by this pattern also exists in the brains of people; and if you're a Platonist, then it exists as an abstract object. Therefore, "god" exists as an objective aspect of reality in at least two ways.
""zhe" is an arrangement of letters, a word. That arrangement of letters exists in many different forms, but all these forms match the pattern "zhe," at least in the English language. This allows us to convey information to each other by writing the pattern "zhe." So the physical manifestation of this pattern exists in itself as an objective aspect of reality. Moreover, the information encoded by this pattern also exists in the brains of people; and if you're a Platonist, then it exists as an abstract object. Therefore, "zhe" exists as an objective aspect of reality in at least two ways."
It doesn't though, you ignoramus. That's precisely my point. Zhe has no meaning like the word "god" does. The word "god" encodes a piece of information and it can be found in the brains of people and if you were to look at one person's brain, their definition of "god" would be more or less the same as the next person's. So if one person communicates to another using the pattern "god," they'd more or less understand each other. And if one didn't know what "god" mean, it could be easily explained and talked about. The same can't be said about zhe because there is no objective meaning behind "zhe." It's babble. There is no logically consistent meaning for the word "zhe" like there is for the word "god." All we know is that "zhe" is a pronoun, but it doesn't refer to any concrete aspect of reality like the pronoun "he" does. For a person to accurately refer to themselves as "he," they'd need XY chromosomes, but what is needed for a person to accurately refer to themselves as "zhe"? Nothing or it's unclear. If you still don't see the difference, then you may be mentally retarded.
You need to ease up on the ad hominem. Your inability to grasp the validity of other people's opinions doesn't justify personal insults.
It takes about 1 to 2 seconds to Google zhe and see it has some meaning. You're insistence only established words are valid is silly, since we'd have no words at all if that was how we thought.
Will you remove your objection when the word zhe is added to the dictionary? My phone is already starting to recognise it more as I type it more often, and that is pretty much how languages create new words.
toward | this way | this word cannot be translated literally. ' Particle' refers to its grammatical function (lasting actions) 着 ( zhe ) belongs to the 50 most common Chinese characters (rank 40)
so its a Chinese word?
sorry i didn't read the post..hahah..i just searched the word and this popped-out.
myusernamekthx
I think the problem that vexes you is that the word zhe did not exist before however, you cannot deny that it refers to an objective reality it is, people who do not identify themselves with male/ female dichotomy. It is an old phenomenon (you can just read about the several cultures where there these people were considered a third gender ) but one that did not have a word to refer to in English up to now.
New words are created all the time to designate things, objects, and attitudes that are new or just found to exist. For example, the word "blue" did not exist for Ancient Greeks, they did not see the sky as blue. It just came into the language (and into quite a few others) later. It does not mean that blue as a wavelength was not there but they hade trouble seeing it because they did not have the concept just asyou cannot see the third gender people for what they are but that does not deny their existence and the need to refer t them in some way.
@ Peach blossom
"if you were to look at one person's brain, their definition of "god" would be more or less the same as the next person's."
So, the same definition would be say Aphrodite and Poisedon? Shiva and YHWH? Ganesh and Allah? Loki and Jesus?
Are you really reading this guff you write before you send it?
The word "god" is a generic term, dipshit.
If aphrodite, poisedon, shiva, YHWH, etc., are gods, then that means they all possess properties that are intrinsic to the word "god," which is precisely why you label them as "gods."
I can't believe how dumb some of you are. Wow.
Going back to zhe, what exactly does zhe mean? Can you give me examples of a zhe? You gave me examples of gods, but where are your examples of zhe? And what properties does a person need in order to be accurately called a "zhe"?
@little girlie tantrum
My point was entirely valid. Each culture has a completely different definition for their god or gods. The gods differ in sex, attributes , appearance, powers, lineage, creation and many other ways. There us no 'overarching' concept of god until Roman catholocism made a certain concept compulsory, snd then with limited success. Each " brain" in each culture would have a different concept of the god or gods depending on the cultural millieu. So your argument on this point fails.
However, I do understand your lack of cultural education, your worship of monocultural ideals. But that still doesnt make your post any more intelligent than a 5 year olds reminiscences on the tooth fairy.
The only generic properties all deities possess is the complete lack of evidence for them. As they're man made fictions.
"The word "god" is a generic term, dipshit."
No it isn't, it *can be* a generic term, which is not the same thing as "it is" a generic term, as it also can mean wildly different things. Words have primary definitions based on common usage, these tend to be more generic than their nuanced definitions which are less commonly used.
@myuser Re: "The word "god" is a generic term, dipshit."
Little boy, you should now go wash out your mouth with soap, say 20 Hail Maries, and pray to your beloved, kind, and gentle Sky-Daddy for forgiveness like a good little Christian believer. Run along now before that mean ol' nasty Devil sees what you have done and steals your poor little soul. *walking away wringing hands nervously while talking to self* Goodness gracious, that poor little child. Oh dear, oh dear...
Being widely understood or misunderstood by using one language or another has no bearing on the objective world of facts.
What concrete aspect of reality does the word god refer to. What chromosomes does god have? Words are invented and defined arbitrarily, new words that never existed are added to official dictionaries ever year, zhe is a word that has whatever meaning the person invented it says...you may not approve but apparently that is irrelevant.
No human is born with god information in their brain is there.
"What concrete aspect of reality does the word god refer to. What chromosomes does god have?"
Oof. OK. I can see now that you do in fact have a low IQ. You don't seem to understand what words, meaning, and abstract objects are, so when I referred to "god," you took that literally, as opposed to the information encoded in the word god.
You are the one that said god word refers to a concrete aspect of reality - where is this god you refer to, any god will do. Not the word the actual concrete aspect of reality that is a god your word god refers to...want to know its genotype as well.
"You are the one that said god word refers to a concrete aspect of reality"
The issue here is you're dumb. You don't seem to understand what "reality" means: it encompasses matter and energy, but it also encompasses mathematical facts, concepts, abstract objects, ideas, etc. By "concrete aspect of reality" with respect to "zhe," I'm referring to a logically coherent and consistent intrinsic property that "zhe" possesses. It doesn't seem to have one. It appears to be just an utterance that some people have chosen to refer to themselves as. It's gobbledygook and completely arbitrary.
You seem to think there is a God of Words that controls the creation, meaning, and usage of words.
Wrong again. He's trying to make you understand that the word God can have wildly different definitions for different people. No one's arguing the word doesn't have a primary dictionary definition that reflects common usage.
Pages