I haven't read every single word here but I think this is the first time a statement like this has been posted here. By someone other than me.

'... to find meaning ...'

The word actually incorporates a circle of meanings and that's what makes it so verdant with equivocal deflections and a rich subject for discussion groups.

--imm

A-theism. Without belief.

Not difficult. This 'rev' is just another tool attempting to blur the lines between belief and non-belief. Gee, I wonder why.

Do you know what offal is?

Do you prefer a synonym?

"the edible internal parts of an animal, such as the heart, liver, and tongue"

You should look up the literal meaning of drivel.

Specifically in the obscuring/cover radar return context, which is how I meant it.

It matters.

There has been an effort to equivocate atheism/theism as morally equal weight propositions for some time now. Mostly by mischaracterizing atheism, which the author you cited does brilliantly.

Word salad has a very specific definition. While you may not agree with this article or find it difficult to understand, it is most certainly not word salad.

If you are using it in some kind of "common" way, like you use delusional, you may want to clarify that, because I haven't seen it used like that except by people that don't really know what it is.

Besides a disbelief in god, what are the lines between belief and non-belief?

"Largely, their misconception derives from the false assumption that atheism and religion are mutually exclusive. They are not.

Religion does not require god. Let me repeat and reframe that. Being a religious person does not require a belief in a supernatural being."

Ok, the latter claim is true. Fine enough. However, it does nothing to support the first claim. In fact, they are wholly unrelated.

I actually did NOT know that was a clinical term.

Mea culpa.


That line of logic used by the author is what I would describe as unintelligible, but word salad was clearly not the correct term.

I may be oversensitive about this, but I really try to object when I see psychiatric terms used in a colloquial way.

Thanks, AC.

clinical/technical manner.

I bet a lot of people have no idea the true meaning of the term. I've certainly seen it used here, to describe speeches made by Bachmann, Putin, and Palin.

It gets used a lot in the gungeon too.
I'll point it out from now on when I see it used in that manner. I thought you were screwing with me at first.

Hope you understand my reasons for objecting.

Sometimes I don't understand what you are trying to communicate, but I have never seen you exhibit word salad, lol!

but "word salad" has also entered the popular lexicon to refer to people like Sarah Palin, who string together a lot of words that say little or nothing.
That is probably what AC meant.

something entirely different.

In general, when one takes serious psychiatric terms and applies them in a colloquial way, it minimizes the seriousness and plight of those who actually have these illnesses.

The word "retarded" is the clearest example.

but clearly a word like "retarded" is known by most who use it and what it refers to.
I would guess most have heard "word salad" in reference to people like Palin and not schizophrenics.

You have educated AC, who probably won't use it in this context again.

I had no idea it was a clinical term. (Though I don't use it very much, I always read it as "jumbled, unclear writing.&quot

I think the rev is making an interesting point. And even if I disagree, it is with a clearly articulated position. Likewise, a Christian explaining how homosexuals are causing god to withdraw his veil of protection and thus bringing floods and hurricanes and possibly a meteor, I would object to the content but clearly understand the argument.

The word salad definition is just another way of saying bullshit. When you finally parse through the pile of words you literally have no content. When the speaker is stalling and flailing, it's obvious. When the speaker is on his game, you feel satisfied and like there's a real answer until you actually try to unpack those words.

Hysterical used to be a medical term but it has since been deprecated while remaining in the popular vernacular in a completely different context.

It originated as a term describing a "wandering uterus". Freud, of course, used it extensively as a medical term applicable only to women.

Recognized as fairly sexist, it was phased out of medical terminology and not used at all these days.

It is used colloquially, but many still consider it a very sexist term and object to it.

I'm aware of the history but most people simply think of it as meaning "extraordinarily funny." The history is lost on them.