3 of 4
3
Definitions
Posted: 08 March 2014 07:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2009-02-26

Mr. LaClair,

Let me assure you that I have the greatest respect for your considered opinions.  After we came to agreement, I had hope that particular example would bring a smile to your face.  My mistake.

Is that rerspectful enought for you.  And from now on will you refrain from hurling ad honinems at me? Please….....looksmiley.gif

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2014 07:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2009-02-26

Seems I am in a time warp, my response being posted before you have made your statement.  Interesting, or…...foul play….......????

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2014 07:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2009-02-26

Paul, your computer clock is off by some 15 minutes, you may want to check that. Or perhaps it is CFI server.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2014 07:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

You guys are entirely transparent. You’re doing the equivalent of bullying. Don’t misunderstand or distort that observation, your behavior does not threaten me. This isn’t a comment about me, it’s a comment about your behavior. I’m making you uncomfortable, so you want me out of here. You’ve even resorted the laugh-out-loud face. How juvenile can you be? As a moderator, Occam, that behavior is utterly shameful.

I know this is what you’re up to because if you truly didn’t understand what I was writing, you would ask what I meant by this or that. But instead, I’ve gotten angry denunciations, and now insults. There’s no reason to be angry with someone, or ridicule someone because you don’t understand him. Ask him what he means. Not once has that happened on this thread, except by me asking questions of others. The only questions I’ve gotten on this thread were rhetorical.

It may not mean anything to you but it means plenty to me: I write appellate briefs and motion papers for judges to read. I win a far higher percentage of my motions and appeals than most lawyers, partly because I write very clearly. If you think I don’t, I’m confident enough about my writing to know that the problem isn’t with me, it’s with your inability to process the information – at least after I’ve read it over again to make sure I was clear, which I’ve done. I’ve had a few people read through this thread today as a favor to me. None of them had any trouble understanding me, or all of you for that matter. They’ve all told me that you’re wacko. You can’t know that but I do know it, and I have to act according to what I know.

This mud-fight has nothing to do with clarity. It has to do with the fact that you guys have a bizarre approach to language, which seems to arise from your visceral reaction to any words you associate with religion. I’ve made a point about the inherent ambiguities of group self-definitions for groups like ours, and something about it rubs you all the wrong way. But it’s obviously an emotional reaction. I’ve seen this too often for it to be an accident here.

There’s no point in trying to discuss this with you. I might as well try having a conversation with a fundie. My colleague had it right: on this subject at least, you’re crazy. He won’t have anything to do with this place, and neither will most people.

So keep on doing your routine. You’ll have your own little echo chamber all to yourselves because no one else will have anything to do with you.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2014 07:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

Too little, too late, Write. I am not an apologetic, and I do not just claim to be an ally. I’ve been on the front lines in more ways than you know about, and have better things to do than waste my time with people who aren’t listening.

Like many people in this movement, you have issues with religion. That would be OK if you kept your reason and sense of proportion but you don’t. That’s my view, whether either of us likes it or not.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2014 08:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2009-02-26
PLaClair - 08 March 2014 07:49 PM

Too little, too late, Write. I am not an apologetic, and I do not just claim to be an ally. I’ve been on the front lines in more ways than you know about, and have better things to do than waste my time with people who aren’t listening.

Well, perhaps you are so full of yourself you have lost the ability to listen to others.

Like many people in this movement, you have issues with religion. That would be OK if you kept your reason and sense of proportion but you don’t. That’s my view, whether either of us likes it or not.

Oh now you are a psychologist as well?  My, my aren’t we accomplished. From my viewpoint I see a certain transferrence going on.

Well, while you were arguing you case before SCOTUS, I was acquiring grants to build a salmon hatchery, to try and compensate for commercial overfishing of salmon and installing a program to protect the sturgeon, one of the oldest species on earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon

And in what way do I have issues with religion? And if you cannot define religion how can you come to the conclusion I have issues with religion? Is that legalese enough for you.  In law you have no more rights or privileges than I do and certainly not in this forum.

I have not heard an apology from you yet for your insults directed at me. So on this thread you are now the troll, not I.

[ Edited: 08 March 2014 08:53 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 March 2014 01:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

How fascinating, PLC.  Each of us is quite certain he’s a genius and that the other is a dolt who has no ability to understand extremely clear writing. 

The use of the smiley is to demonstrate the emotions connected with the post, which may not be apparent from the text.  It seems you didn’t understand their function.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2014 08:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1408
Joined  2009-10-21

Boy am I glad I didn’t get into this one earlier. Thanks for figuring out that you all agree that words that refer to large groups of people over centuries of history are hard to define. I think I agree with Paul that sometimes we spend a little too much time dealing with those definitions, but, nothing is making me read or respond to those conversations. I don’t spend any time writing theories about Fibonacci numbers either, but I’m fine with others doing it.

What I disagree on is that when I use a word, it should mean what someone else thinks it means. This is what happened in the Science v Religion thread. I used the word “religion” and Paul told me I meant something by that. I didn’t mean that, but it didn’t seem to matter how many times I tried to clarify and explain what I did mean.

Corollary to that would be someone can’t tell you to use a word the way they want it used. The only exception would be when using words that describe what a person is. For example, some Native Americans want to be called Indians, others want to be called by their tribal name. The only way to know is to ask the individual.

I respect Paul’s desire to have his organization named “religious humanism”. I don’t respect his request that I use the term “religion” in the way he wants when referring to religion in general in every conversation I have anywhere. If indeed that is his request, but it’s hard to tell with him.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2014 10:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27

Here’s an exercise for everyone regarding the meanings of words.  Imagine yourself accompanied by a person who comes from another country who doesn’t understand the subtleties of the English language, but he/she is interested enough to try to make sense of what is being discussed.  As an examole, this person asks you what a Democrat is, a Republican, what religion means, etc.  How would you answer those questions? This is not a matter of trying to translate the words into the other person’s language, but interpreting the meaning. Or would you just tell the person that such questions are too complicated to answer?

Lois

[ Edited: 07 April 2014 09:40 PM by Lois ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2014 10:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Geez, Lois.  There goes my succinctness.  Just elucidating the various meanings of Democrat, for example, not only within my framework, but also how conservatives would use the word, would take hours.  However, I could be sloppy and just say, “a member of a slightly more liberal political party.”  smile  (wouldn’t that micturate off one of our members? LOL )

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2014 10:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1408
Joined  2009-10-21

Reminds me of a Tarzan movie where Tarzan is flying into New York for the first time. He is asking questions about what he is seeing, and although his English is not so good, he gets to the philosophical questions almost immediately, like why would men build a concrete jungle? His companion from the modern world just laughs and says those questions don’t have answers.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2014 10:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2009-02-26
Occam. - 10 March 2014 10:39 AM

Geez, Lois.  There goes my succinctness.  Just elucidating the various meanings of Democrat, for example, not only within my framework, but also how conservatives would use the word, would take hours.  However, I could be sloppy and just say, “a member of a slightly more liberal political party.”  smile  (wouldn’t that micturate off one of our members? LOL )

Occam

Some time ago, at a party, my wife mentioned she was a Democrat. She was promptly and loudly labeled “the antichrist” by one of the other guests, a “reborn Christian”.  It was a very Christian gesture.

I try to avoid groups of people like that.  No productive conversation or definition of ANY KIND can be held with such mindset.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2014 11:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2009-02-26
Lois - 10 March 2014 10:06 AM

Here’s an exercise for everyone regarding the meanings of words.  Imagine yourself accompanied by a person who comes from another country who doesn’t understand the subtleties of the English language, but he/she is interested enough to try to make sense of what id being discussed.  As an examole, this person asks you what a Democrat is, a Republican, what religion means, etc.  How would you answer those questions? This is not a matter of trying to translate the words into the other person’s language, but interpreting the meaning. Or would you just tell the person that such questions are too complicated to answer?

Lois

I don’t have to imagine that scenario, Lois.  I am that person from another country and I have 4 dog-eared dictionaries laying about. Now I use mostly wiki and the net dictionaries. As a Dutchman I do have an advantage of having been exposed to three other languages in addition to dutch while growing up.

If the word itself is pertinent to the conversation, I always look up the definitions associated with that word before I use it. But sometimes it is more difficult to explain the definition and intrinsic meaning of a word or term to an english speaking person, because they have only been exposed to a single meaning during casual conversation in their natural environment.

Interestingly, I found that the oldest words in the dictionaries also have the most definitions and more modern words have narrow specific meanings.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2014 06:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2014-04-07

“I cannot think of any successful group that assigns a single unambiguous definition to itself, because in point of fact, not everyone in the group will look at it in the same way. To be sure, the group needs enough definition to be inviting, attract members and move forward toward its goals.”


  I think that there are successful groups that assign a single unambiguous definition. many groups have belief statements. mission statements. summary statements. creeds. at a surface level, i think most people in america would know what a christian was, what a democrat was, etc. having said that I was a member of the united church of christ, a liberal church. and every single “definition” I heard about our denomination and specific church a lot of people liked….some other members would hate. no one could agree on a single defintion. but we grew from 50 people to 400. so there was enough clarity for growth.

to continue example of christian:

There is a very simple definition in most of america for what a christian is: someone who believes in christianity, and has “relationship with jesus.’


having said that….the fact is that the term christian is way more complex, and the current americanized, conversionistic, individualistic model is simply one paradigm.

in may countries, you are either christian or muslim. by birth. has nothing to do with belief. it is cultural.
there is also the flipside of the christian in america if you are not jew,atheist, buddhist, muslim scientoligist..you are considered christian (this is very true in south)


what is a christian?

a) “someone who has accepted jesus”
b) “a member of the christian church’
c) someone who believes in the bible and god and stuff.
d) functional defintions: “you are a christian if you are my kind of christian” example: 4 people meet. they talk, find they are all in church choirs. then they find out one of them is gay and democrat. he leaves. other people say. ” that guy is not a christian.”  I have heard “a christian will not vote for obama” etc…

e) self-identifying as the definiton “you are a christian if you call yourself one”
f) pedagogical definitions…. definitions narrower than most meant to challenge or cause people to join with/agree with this smaller group.  “real christians believe in non-violence” “I am a christian. I actually follow the words of jesus…so I care about the poor”
g) any member of western society who vaguely believes the following are real :heaven/hell. angels/demons, god/jesus, bible is true.
h) litteral meaning “little christ’ or “little anointed’ someone who imitates the behavior of jesus (this begs question of how he behaved…another whole thread!)

the idea of assigning an unambiguous meaning was bit bold.

my suggestion would be to create a working defintion.

frankly, I have no idea what a religious humanist is?

it is someone who devoutly but in secular fashion treats secular humanism like a religion/church?
is it someone who is religious (christian, jew, etc) that also claims a strong tie to humanism?
is it someone who is spiritual-ish or open to spiritualty, but not a part of formal religion, who along with their spirtuality has strong humanist beliefs?

I actually don’t know.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2014 07:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  973
Joined  2005-01-14
somepetezimm - 07 April 2014 06:01 PM

frankly, I have no idea what a religious humanist is?

it is someone who devoutly but in secular fashion treats secular humanism like a religion/church?
is it someone who is religious (christian, jew, etc) that also claims a strong tie to humanism?
is it someone who is spiritual-ish or open to spiritualty, but not a part of formal religion, who along with their spirtuality has strong humanist beliefs?

I actually don’t know.

You’ve managed to hit the nail squarely on the head, Pete.  Placlair chased this topic through multiiple threads, but never managed to successfully explain what he meant by a religious humanist either.  That’s why I finally bailed out on the topic.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3