Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Objectivist]

So.... you're a thiest, then?    

Not at work.

How does that follow? 

If I say: "I have heard this political justification many times from Americans," does this tell you that I'm not American? Or does it just say that Americans often say that thing (whereas, perhaps, Japanese people don't)?

---

We don't define a rock or a tree because these things are concrete.

I'm pretty sure that geologists and plant biologists can define these things.

They define the concept "tree" and "rock" not each and every tree and rock.  Again, the role of a concept in cognition is to condense a huge number of units into one.  A unit is one of a group of similar things.  similar things vary only in their specific measurements.  The concept tree subsumes all trees that exist now, have existed, or will ever exist. We don't define each individual tree just as we don't define every unit of the concept "man".  We don't have a definition of Sally or Rob or John because these are not abstractions.  concretes have descriptions, abstractions have definitions.  If we defined every concrete we come upon that would defeat the purpose of definitions, which is the final step in concept formation.  Think of a concept as a file folder, a word as the label on the file folder and a definition as a shorthand description of what's in the folder, enough to let you know what's in there and to differentiate the contents of one folder from another.  Unit economy is the name of the game in cognition.

---

I reject the whole notion of a definition of God.  We don't define concretes.  Definitions apply to concepts.  What we are actually getting from theists is descriptions of the god they are imagining.  We don't define a rock or a tree because these things are concrete.  Similarly, God is supposed to be a real existing thing and unique so the notion of defining God is a misapplication of the concept "definition".  We don't define a single shell that we pick up on the beach.  We identify it as a member of the class "shell" and we might describe this particular member of the class "shell" by its color, size, etc., but we don't form a definition of it.  We define the concept "shell".  We don't form concepts of single one-off things.  A concept is a mental integration of two or more similar things with their particular measurements omitted.  So anyone who offers a definition for God does not understand how concepts and definitions work.  There is no need for the concept "God" if there's only one.  That would negate the whole purpose of concepts in the first place.  The only way that "God" could be a concept is in the way that some writer comes up with a concept for a character in a story like Luke Skywalker in Star Wars.  The pupose of a definition is to name the things a concept subsumes, its units, and to condense that to essential characteristics.  A definition does not name every attribute of a unit but it implies them and only lists the essentials.  Another role of definitions is to differentiate a concept from other concepts in the mind, to keep them separate and to organize them.  

The "concept" "God" is actually an anti-concept.  If the purpose of a concept is to make cognition possible, an anti-concept renders it impossible.  They are cognitively useless and meaningless.  They can mean anything anyone wants them to mean.  After two thousand years, the "definition" of God is still not clear.  While the definition of the concept "apple" is.  That's because the concept "apple" is a legitimate concept with real cognitive usefulness.

I've said more or less the same thing frequently.  There may be plenty of 'definitions' of God, but that's exactly the trouble: plenty of definitions.  No one defines an apple as 'a small aquatic bird' or 'the Earth's primary natural satellite' or 'a savoury pie made with minced beef and onions.'  We can all agree on what an apple is.  Agreeing on what God is has caused no end of unpleasantness.

Boru

Aye, unpleasantness.  Up to and including massive wars.

---

How does that follow? 

If I say: "I have heard this political justification many times from Americans," does this tell you that I'm not American? Or does it just say that Americans often say that thing (whereas, perhaps, Japanese people don't)?

Actually... given the way reading writen words works in English, yes.

Since we have no way of knowing the innitial writer's origins.... such a comment would leave the reader with the inclination that said writer was NOT American simply due to the phrasing.

As a non American, I would definately write such a sentence.

There would normally be other, defining words added to the sentence such as 'Other'.

*Note I am comming from a totally germaine, coloquial and uneducated back ground with respect to my understanding of my own 'native' language.

However, even given the above, you can directly see how I am using the language in regards to my self to illustrate my point.

Again, perhaps, it is your time spent within a completely different thought sphere which is shifting your 'Automatic' use of the Enlish language into which you were raised innitially?

Cheers.

Not at work.

---

---

I'm pretty sure that geologists and plant biologists can define these things.

No Bel.

That's a completly different thing/phrase.

Geologists and Horoculturalists can define things that way because there are litterally things in existance to define.

Language is descripitve.

If there's nothing 'There' to descirbe?
You're effectivly either creating sounds/letter structures that mean nothing... Or you're using established, agreed upon (But still, in essence 'Random') words/phrases to wrap a 'Non-thing' in.

If I now type the word "Vorpal".

People on the forum can either look said word up to seek its meaning or they may actully already know know the origins, etymology and meaning of said word.

That the word, innitially, was 'Meaningless' now doesn't matter. It's entered coloquial parlance and so typing the word will produce meaningful results.

It still doesn't make the concept behind the word any more 'Real'.

EDIT: Also, see the above post by downbeatplumb... I think...

Not at work.

Welcome to the A.S.S. Vorpal Blade.  Let's see if anyone knows that reference.  Are there any SF fans here?