I have to admit I agree with you. The worship of words is the problem. When I undertook this venture to express my own thinking or philosophy of me I had no idea it would have been this difficult. I assumed and took it for granted that the words and the meaning in everyday general circulation("common parlance") was enough to make a step to expressing my thinking.
Somewhere earlier, I suggested that your use of words was careless and that the title was either meaningless or trivial.
I concluded our thinking processes is being misrepresented by our words.
There are many books written on the relationship between thought, speech and the written language. The written language is probably the most difficult thing with which to convey thoughts - it is devoid of tone and cannot be interrupted for explanations. It is therefore essential to be as precise as possible in your choice of words, "Common parlance" does not cut it. You propose a hypothesis and it can only be answered if you have the right words.
When you say the word God I have no concept,
The Bible, the Koran, The Upanishads, The Torah, Yasna, etc. all contain descriptions of the deities involved. The descriptions are not necessarily "He was tall with brown hair, etc." but they describe the character of the deities - In much the same way that your firends might describe your character by reference to your deeds. To fail to have a concept is a severe failing. It means that you cannot pick up on the words written to bring about a concept.
but atheists on here have one.
Merely knowing how deities behave and the nature of their interests and laws creates that concept. None of us, or the religious, say that our concept is 100% accurate, but then nobody who described you to a stranger would be 100% accurate - that does not matter.
That bugs me.
You worry for no reason.
Therefore I tried to express that -- the men who said and taught "God said". Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Mahavira, etc like we do in science.
The difference is that in science, it is not at all necessary to know anything about Newton, Einstein, Galileo Kepler, Fleming, Bohr, etc. You only need to know that their great contributions exist as explanations - once gravity was explained, there was no need to know anything about Newton - the theory exists independent of him. Religion differs: the religious are obsessed with their deities. What their deities say and how right they are is a point of argument, strife and war amongst the religious: they are all as mad as each other.
Trying to give it logic and rationale. It is not designed for us to be defeated by words that are meaningless as you purport.
The words become meaningless if there is no meaning behind them. The words betray the lies and deceptions put forward by the deluded.
If I was to teach you Boolean Algebra I need you to be able to understand some form of mathematical logic.
Two points arise from this:
1. Boolean Algebra is as good as the understanding and expression of the propositions. It restricts itself to definitions. This is fine in a mechanical world; it is fine in a theoretical world; it is fine where the truth-value is known. In matters of uncertainty, it is worthless. We have already had someone who tried to "prove God" via Boolean Algebra - he failed... all fail.
2. If, tomorrow, every trace of Boolean Algebra were to disappear, after a while, someone would rediscover it. If, tomorrow, every trace of religion were to disappear, some fairytale would come along and take its place - nothing like the same fairytale - but there would be new and quite different deities. This is how we know that gods are nowhere but in the mind of man.
There is a lot of favouritism,emotional bias and subjective self interest in most posts. And none of it is moderated. IMO there is a some bias on here in favour of word salad.
You may be right in some respects. If you see posts that express frustration, a wise man will ask, "What caused that? Was I unclear? Did I use language correctly? Did my words convey a meaning clear to all? Or did I just write in a language I understand but should not expect others to understand?"