Atheist "identity"

You are generally better at saying what I was thinking. what you intend to do is critical. It's why loaded language exists. The intent of the speaker is to create images, create associations, and knowingly create false impressions. It's not a failure on the part of language or of the speaker. Sadly, it's actually a success.

Again, I have had philo classes over the course of my life, but am not really skilled in being a philosopher - in thinking that way. I think about language as a functional tool, not as a hindrance to communication. I generally assume that most people own their ideas, and the attempts to communicate them are usually successes. even if what they are trying to communicate includes being intentionally manipulative.

I also approach this having taught classes for years, on somewhat complex ideas about language and religion. at no time in those classes did i have to say "ok, you are confused about the word religion, so I need to use a different word". I walked in, explained my position, then expanded. So again, the idea that language or particular words hinder real understanding or indepth exploration of whatever topic you wish to explore seems counter intuitive to everything I've seen or done.

Are you going to have problems when talking about atheism with a die-hard christian fundi? Yes. But I disagree that the fail point (or fix point) is teh word choice. It is the willingness of the other party to use agreed upon meanings. And in that context, it does not matter if you choose different words or not - if he or she chooses not to hear you, they simply will not hear you.

The word choice is only the failure point if it fails to conjure up the intended images for someone else. Whether it be a single word, or a longer phrase. I don't think it's a problem with a piece language (or symbolism) or the person using it. Where I think the problem is the translation between the two.

Totally context:

Someone I follow on FB was asked on one of those anonymous question things: "what is the most adult thing you've ever done?" The fact is that she's an alternative model... so you can kind of see where that could lead.

Yes, but that is a fallacy or *intention* of the writer. Written communication, where you do not know the audience you will find, is more laden with potholes than spoken or "one to one" communication with an instant audience that cannot change without your awareness. (video also makes this one-on-one communication problematic. as does the modern invention of editing out the context and leaving only naked words).

When you tweet or facebook, you are not really communicating the way our language evolved. so yes, you do need new rules. But I still think those rules come secondary to the fact that some audience members do not want to know, do not care to know what you mean only what they want you to mean.

“”But I still think those rules come secondary to the fact that some audience members do not want to know, do not care to know what you mean only what they want you to mean.

QFT.

But, the trick is to give them no choice in how they interpret you. Hence you have to be aware of what they think and adapt to it.

So if someone says "you can't prove prayer with science", and won't listen no matter how many times you describe what science is, break it down into something else and make them follow you.