Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I learned a new word last night in quite an unexpected place; a rather simplistic fantasy novel. It's odd how that happens sometimes.
At any rate, it occurred to me that circumlocution is generally employed quite heavily when theists make their arguments for a god. Here is what it means, as it is not a commonly used word...
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki
Circumlocution (also called circumduction, circumvolution, periphrasis,[1] or ambage[2]) refers to ambiguous or roundabout figure of speech.[3] Ambiguity means information that can have multiple meanings.[4] For example, governmental income support to poor residents might be referred to as "welfare". Roundabout speech refers to using many words (such as "a tool used for cutting things such as paper and hair") to describe something for which a concise (and commonly known) expression exists ("scissors").
The question is how often this is employed intentionally to further cloud the issue. Or, the issue is inherently ambiguous and can not even be discussed without circumlocution. I'm sure we've all notice when asking simple "yes" or "no" questions about a god belief, we often get this long diatribe that we must heavily interpret to distill the binary response, often requiring even more questions to eventually arrive at that point.
Circumlocution is the collective term for a series of practices involving deceptive speech, sometimes with good motives and sometimes with bad ones. Examples are equivocation, employing euphemisms, masking identities via using pronouns rather than names, we all do it from time to time. Anyone who has ever said "I gotta use the can" has employed a circumlocution.
As such, I do not see it as especially descriptive of the theists, they bring a wide variety of logical fallacies to the game, representative of a much broader field of error than is covered by circumlocution.
Last edited by Grandstander; 03-16-2014 at 06:26 PM..
Circumlocution is the collective term for a series of practices involving deceptive speech, sometimes with good motives and sometimes with bad ones. Examples are equivocation, employing euphemisms, masking identities via using pronouns rather than names, we all do it from time to time. Anyone who has ever said "I gotta use the can" has employed a circumlocution.
As such, I do not see it as especially descriptive of the theists, they bring a wide variety of logical fallacies to the game, representative of a much broader field of error than is covered by circumlocution.
I could not agree more
Edit: It seems the more, I hate to use the word, intelligent theists love to baffle with BS, which for me is just another way of saying intentional circumlocution. This is the impression I have anyway after years of debating on forums like this.
Last edited by NOTaTHEIST; 03-16-2014 at 11:08 PM..
As with any five-dollar word, it usually applies better to the more educated. As Grandstander points out, everyday theists tend to violate so many points of logic, circumlocution would hardly be worth noting among their faults. But when it comes to reading articles written by the likes of, say, Karen Armstrong, Terry Eagleton, Marilynne Robinson, Reza Azlan, or any of those other so-called "sophisticated" theologians, I would say circumlocution has become a finely crafted talent. In fact, I would call it part of their stock and trade. One of my favorite moments was when Richard Dawkins, after recently reading a Karen Armstrong article, was convinced that she was actually an atheist. That was some circumlocution!
But when it comes to reading articles written by the likes of, say, Karen Armstrong, Terry Eagleton, Marilynne Robinson, Reza Azlan, or any of those other so-called "sophisticated" theologians, I would say circumlocution has become a finely crafted talent.
I think this "finely crafted talent" as you put it, is what makes it nearly impossible for me to listen to the theist half of theist/atheist debates. Something about their word-play makes me cringe. I think this oratory device might be the cause, and now I have a word to describe my suspicions
I think this "finely crafted talent" as you put it, is what makes it nearly impossible for me to listen to the theist half of theist/atheist debates. Something about their word-play makes me cringe. I think this oratory device might be the cause, and now I have a word to describe my suspicions
Your bias and self-deception is quite palpable if you actually think atheists are not guilty of the same thing!
Your bias and self-deception is quite palpable if you actually think atheists are not guilty of the same thing!
You bias and self deception is quite palpable without that, old son. In fact - and I do mean fact - atheists habitually try to clear arguments up to see what the evidence actually indicates and theists habitually try to confuse matters to make everyone unsure of what is what (1) so the 'God' - claim can continue to look credible.
Circumlocution or 'dancing around it' or 'rhetorical gymnsatics' is a standard weapon in the theist apologetics armoury.
(1) examples - the 'how do we know what we know' package, the 'Woo woo physics' gambit and of course the 'God's logic' swindle incorporating reversing the burden of proof, asserting the reality of the unproven until disproven and the good old 'absence of evidence' cheat.
Your bias and self-deception is quite palpable if you actually think atheists are not guilty of the same thing!
Atheists are guilty of plain speaking which makes some people uncomfortable if it's not what they want to hear.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You bias and self deception is quite palpable without that, old son. In fact - and I do mean fact - atheists habitually try to clear arguments up to see what the evidence actually indicates and theists habitually try to confuse matters to make everyone unsure of what is what (1) so the 'God' - claim can continue to look credible.
