Discussion:
how to say "god does not exist" in arabic?
(too old to reply)
Warble606
2004-08-16 19:09:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?

Warb.
Harlan Messinger
2004-08-16 19:21:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What, in your estimation, do high-IQ people who subscribe to Islam exclaim?

Do you think there are people who subscribe to Islam as something *other*
than a religion?

Why do you focus on Islam--do you think adherents of other religions don't
chant similar forms of praise?

Why do you use double quotes--are you under the impression that the religion
is not actually called "Islam"?

And what do mantas have to do with any of this? Mantas *are* mindless, but
they are gentle, playful creatures of the sea, and I can't see why anyone
would want to malign them.
Mark Richardson
2004-08-17 00:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:21:47 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
<snip>
Post by Harlan Messinger
And what do mantas have to do with any of this? Mantas *are* mindless, but
they are gentle, playful creatures of the sea, and I can't see why anyone
would want to malign them.
LOL!

There is only one thing worse than being a wit and that is not being a
wit.

Mark.

--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau

Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)

-----------------------------------------------------
Christopher A. Lee
2004-08-16 19:25:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
I don't think you can. I doubt the concept even exists. Certainly the
closest they get to "atheist" is "kuffr" which is closer to apostate.
The very existence of God as God is presumed, and everybody by
definition realises this but certain people wilfully disobey it.

It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
Post by Warble606
Warb.
Ron Hardin
2004-08-16 19:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
--
Ron Hardin
***@mindspring.com

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Christopher A. Lee
2004-08-16 20:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ron Hardin
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
Orwellian newspeak. Which is actually two words.

From the appendix to 1984:
Christopher A. Lee
2004-08-16 20:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ron Hardin
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
Orwellian newspeak. Which is actually two words.

From the appendix to 1984:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression
for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc,
but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended
that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak
forgotten, a heretical thought - that is, a thought diverging from the
principles of Ingsoc - should be literally unthinkable, at least so
far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so
constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every
meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while
excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at
them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new
words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping
such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible
of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word
free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such
statements as " This dog is free from lice " or " This field is free
from weeds ". It could not be used in its old sense of " politically
free " or " intellectually free " since political and intellectual
freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of
necessity nameless. Quite apart from the suppression of definitely
heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in
itself, and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to
survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range
of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the
choice of words down to a minimum.
Harlan Messinger
2004-08-16 20:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Ron Hardin
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
Orwellian newspeak. Which is actually two words.
[text snipped]

Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the Martian
atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands of tree seeds on
it and watching them grow overnight with the first rain, just because Ray
Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
W. Syme
2004-08-17 01:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Ron Hardin
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
Orwellian newspeak. Which is actually two words.
[text snipped]
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the Martian
atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands of tree seeds on
it and watching them grow overnight with the first rain, just because Ray
Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
Is your points that things that are in books are by definition
impossible?
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
W. Syme (pseudonym), European, non-native English speaker, "soft" atheist.
Email will not be read.
Christopher A. Lee
2004-08-17 11:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 03:22:03 +0200, W. Syme
Post by W. Syme
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Ron Hardin
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
Orwellian newspeak. Which is actually two words.
[text snipped]
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the Martian
atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands of tree seeds on
it and watching them grow overnight with the first rain, just because Ray
Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
Is your points that things that are in books are by definition
impossible?
I've never heard of this troll before. He's just being deliberately
stupid.
Peter T. Daniels
2004-08-17 12:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 03:22:03 +0200, W. Syme
Post by W. Syme
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Ron Hardin
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
Orwellian newspeak. Which is actually two words.
[text snipped]
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the Martian
atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands of tree seeds on
it and watching them grow overnight with the first rain, just because Ray
Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
Is your points that things that are in books are by definition
impossible?
I've never heard of this troll before. He's just being deliberately
stupid.
If you're interested in twisting words, perhaps you shouldn't be
crossposting to sci.lang.

His point is that things that are in books of fiction do not necessarily
represent reality.
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
Christopher A. Lee
2004-08-17 13:44:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:28:10 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 03:22:03 +0200, W. Syme
Post by W. Syme
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Ron Hardin
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
Orwellian newspeak. Which is actually two words.
[text snipped]
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the Martian
atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands of tree seeds on
it and watching them grow overnight with the first rain, just because Ray
Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
Is your points that things that are in books are by definition
impossible?
I've never heard of this troll before. He's just being deliberately
stupid.
If you're interested in twisting words, perhaps you shouldn't be
crossposting to sci.lang.
His point is that things that are in books of fiction do not necessarily
represent reality.
Sigh. It was the APPENDIX. Not part of the fiction. His explanation
for the books use of what he called newspeak.

As even the troll should have known.

But we've all seen examples in real life: eg "unborn children" rather
than zygote/embryo/blastocyst/etc. If the words are no longer used
there is no way to describe the different stages.
Peter T. Daniels
2004-08-17 13:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by W. Syme
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Ron Hardin
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
Orwellian newspeak. Which is actually two words.
[text snipped]
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the Martian
atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands of tree seeds on
it and watching them grow overnight with the first rain, just because Ray
Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
Is your points that things that are in books are by definition
impossible?
I've never heard of this troll before. He's just being deliberately
stupid.
If you're interested in twisting words, perhaps you shouldn't be
crossposting to sci.lang.
His point is that things that are in books of fiction do not necessarily
represent reality.
Sigh. It was the APPENDIX. Not part of the fiction. His explanation
for the books use of what he called newspeak.
Sigh. It was his _novelist's_ explanation of his fictional world.

Unless, of course, you're looking at an edition of the novel that
reprints his essay "Politics and the English Language," in which case
it's not an appendix to the novel at all, but an expression of opinion
that 50 or 60 years of sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and
pragmatics research might shed new light on.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
As even the troll should have known.
But we've all seen examples in real life: eg "unborn children" rather
than zygote/embryo/blastocyst/etc. If the words are no longer used
there is no way to describe the different stages.
Yet somehow you know the words. If you can't distinguish between
propaganda and non-propaganda, then you have singularly failed to grasp
the point of Orwell's essay.

We note, happily, that you haven't tried to defend your silly notion of
"thought control by language."
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
Harlan Messinger
2004-08-17 11:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by W. Syme
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the Martian
atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands of tree seeds on
it and watching them grow overnight with the first rain, just because Ray
Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
Is your points that things that are in books are by definition
impossible?
I thought it was obvious that I was mocking him for taking the
appearance of a concept in a work of fiction as proof that things *do*
work that way.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
W. Syme
2004-08-17 13:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:57:20 -0400, Harlan Messinger
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by W. Syme
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the Martian
atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands of tree seeds on
it and watching them grow overnight with the first rain, just because Ray
Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
Is your points that things that are in books are by definition
impossible?
I thought it was obvious that I was mocking him for taking the
appearance of a concept in a work of fiction as proof that things *do*
work that way.
So because cars feature in Harry Potter books, I take it you see them
as purely fictional as well?
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
W. Syme (pseudonym), European, non-native English speaker, "soft" atheist.
Email will not be read.
Peter T. Daniels
2004-08-17 13:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by W. Syme
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:57:20 -0400, Harlan Messinger
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by W. Syme
Is your points that things that are in books are by definition
impossible?
I thought it was obvious that I was mocking him for taking the
appearance of a concept in a work of fiction as proof that things *do*
work that way.
So because cars feature in Harry Potter books, I take it you see them
as purely fictional as well?
You atheists really do have a problem with Aristotelian logic, don't
you?
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
Harlan Messinger
2004-08-17 15:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by W. Syme
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:57:20 -0400, Harlan Messinger
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by W. Syme
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the Martian
atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands of tree seeds on
it and watching them grow overnight with the first rain, just because Ray
Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
Is your points that things that are in books are by definition
impossible?
I thought it was obvious that I was mocking him for taking the
appearance of a concept in a work of fiction as proof that things *do*
work that way.
So because cars feature in Harry Potter books, I take it you see them
as purely fictional as well?
Again, I thought it was obvious that I was mocking him for taking the
appearance of a concept in a work of fiction as proof that things *do*
work that way. Now I see that you don't understand the essential difference
between X not being proof of Y (which is what I was saying) and X being
proof of not-Y (which is the only way you seem capable of interpreting what
I said).
Christopher A. Lee
2004-08-17 16:38:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:40:51 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by W. Syme
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:57:20 -0400, Harlan Messinger
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by W. Syme
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the
Martian
Post by W. Syme
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by W. Syme
Post by Harlan Messinger
atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands of tree
seeds on
Post by W. Syme
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by W. Syme
Post by Harlan Messinger
it and watching them grow overnight with the first rain, just because
Ray
Post by W. Syme
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by W. Syme
Post by Harlan Messinger
Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
Is your points that things that are in books are by definition
impossible?
I thought it was obvious that I was mocking him for taking the
appearance of a concept in a work of fiction as proof that things *do*
work that way.
So because cars feature in Harry Potter books, I take it you see them
as purely fictional as well?
Again, I thought it was obvious that I was mocking him for taking the
appearance of a concept in a work of fiction as proof that things *do*
work that way.
Which of course I wan't doing. But then you knew that anyway, troll.

The appendix is not part of the fiction but the background.

We've all seen this kind of linguistic thought control - AND THIS IS
THE REASON IT IS CALLED ORWELLIAN NEWSPEAK.

Please try to be more honest next time.
Post by Harlan Messinger
Now I see that you don't understand the essential difference
between X not being proof of Y (which is what I was saying) and X being
proof of not-Y (which is the only way you seem capable of interpreting what
I said).
Harlan Messinger
2004-08-17 17:56:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:40:51 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by W. Syme
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:57:20 -0400, Harlan Messinger
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by W. Syme
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the
Martian
Post by W. Syme
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by W. Syme
Post by Harlan Messinger
atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands of tree
seeds on
Post by W. Syme
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by W. Syme
Post by Harlan Messinger
it and watching them grow overnight with the first rain, just because
Ray
Post by W. Syme
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by W. Syme
Post by Harlan Messinger
Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
Is your points that things that are in books are by definition
impossible?
I thought it was obvious that I was mocking him for taking the
appearance of a concept in a work of fiction as proof that things *do*
work that way.
So because cars feature in Harry Potter books, I take it you see them
as purely fictional as well?
Again, I thought it was obvious that I was mocking him for taking the
appearance of a concept in a work of fiction as proof that things *do*
work that way.
Which of course I wan't doing. But then you knew that anyway, troll.
The appendix is not part of the fiction but the background.
As I said in another post, that's a laugh riot. In case you didn't notice,
the appendix is written from the perspective of 1984, and goes on about a
political movement called English Socialism, or IngSoc. Are you under the
impression that the appendix was actually written in 1984, or that there
really was a political movement called IngSoc? Of course not. It was all
part of the *work of fiction*.

I wonder if you think the Three Laws of Robotics are real too (the
background to I, Robot). Or that a monolith actually appeared in the past to
a tribe of pre-humans (the background to 2001: A Space Odyssey).
Holden
2004-08-17 20:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:40:51 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by W. Syme
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:57:20 -0400, Harlan Messinger
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by W. Syme
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because
Aldous Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or
that the Martian atmosphere can be made easy to breath by
planting thousands of tree seeds on it and watching them grow
overnight with the first rain, just because Ray Bradbury
imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
Is your points that things that are in books are by definition
impossible?
I thought it was obvious that I was mocking him for taking the
appearance of a concept in a work of fiction as proof that things
*do* work that way.
So because cars feature in Harry Potter books, I take it you see
them as purely fictional as well?
Again, I thought it was obvious that I was mocking him for taking
the appearance of a concept in a work of fiction as proof that
things *do* work that way.
Which of course I wan't doing. But then you knew that anyway, troll.
The appendix is not part of the fiction but the background.
As I said in another post, that's a laugh riot. In case you didn't
notice, the appendix is written from the perspective of 1984, and
goes on about a political movement called English Socialism, or
IngSoc. Are you under the impression that the appendix was actually
written in 1984, or that there really was a political movement called
IngSoc? Of course not. It was all part of the *work of fiction*.
I wonder if you think the Three Laws of Robotics are real too (the
background to I, Robot). Or that a monolith actually appeared in the
past to a tribe of pre-humans (the background to 2001: A Space
Odyssey).
"Orwellian Newspeak" is a contemporary term that has it's roots in the
excerpt of 1984 he posted. Do you know the difference between a common term
derived from a source and the source itself?

You really have missed the entire point; this sort of semantic nonsense
isn't productive. Orwellian newspeak is the term that has come into common
use to describe this behavior, and the fact that the term itself was
inspired by a piece of fiction that advanced a similar notion is no more to
the point than saying that the space shuttle U.S.S. Enterprise isn't a real
shuttle because it's name was derived from the spaceship on Star Trek.
Pieter
2004-08-17 20:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
But newspeak in my reading refers to using words to cloud your meaning,
giving them a meaning opposite from their obvious intention etc. The
point of debate I think is if such usage suffices to brainwash the
masses, and in extremis if you can delete a concept from people's
consciousness by omitting a given term (or, if people without words for
a given concept are by definition unaware of those concepts). If you ask
me I guess it does up to a point, and/but only up to a point.

Ahem was that sharp or what ;) Anyway stupid racist discussion to begin
with, by the way Warble has yet to offer us the words for dog and shit,
unless he intends for us to speak of doggie diarrhoea. See his "arabic
terms related to atheism", including such gems as the words for science,
scholar and uncertainty. No words any religion person would ever think
to use of course.

P.

********

Republicans: A Prose Poem by Eliot Weinberger
http://snipurl.com/8c3l
Post by Holden
"Orwellian Newspeak" is a contemporary term that has it's roots in the
excerpt of 1984 he posted. Do you know the difference between a common term
derived from a source and the source itself?
You really have missed the entire point; this sort of semantic
nonsense
Post by Holden
isn't productive. Orwellian newspeak is the term that has come into common
use to describe this behavior, and the fact that the term itself was
inspired by a piece of fiction that advanced a similar notion is no more to
the point than saying that the space shuttle U.S.S. Enterprise isn't a real
shuttle because it's name was derived from the spaceship on Star Trek.
Harlan Messinger
2004-08-17 21:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Holden
Post by Harlan Messinger
As I said in another post, that's a laugh riot. In case you didn't
notice, the appendix is written from the perspective of 1984, and
goes on about a political movement called English Socialism, or
IngSoc. Are you under the impression that the appendix was actually
written in 1984, or that there really was a political movement called
IngSoc? Of course not. It was all part of the *work of fiction*.
I wonder if you think the Three Laws of Robotics are real too (the
background to I, Robot). Or that a monolith actually appeared in the
past to a tribe of pre-humans (the background to 2001: A Space
Odyssey).
"Orwellian Newspeak" is a contemporary term that has it's roots in the
excerpt of 1984 he posted. Do you know the difference between a common term
derived from a source and the source itself?
You really have missed the entire point; this sort of semantic nonsense
isn't productive. Orwellian newspeak is the term that has come into common
use to describe this behavior,
None of this alters the falsehood of the proposition that people's
thoughts are restricted to those concepts for which they have
terminology, which is the proposition that I was addressing.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Wolfgang Schwanke
2004-08-18 02:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Holden
"Orwellian Newspeak" is a contemporary term that has it's roots in the
excerpt of 1984 he posted.
But it's only a term. The concept doesn't exist, except as failed attempts.
Even the most hardline PC speech never succeeded in preventing anyone from
thinking the thoughts it tried to weed out. And it only ever existed in
small pockets of some language communities, but never took over a language
as a whole.
--
Le lectores comprende le textos sin studio previe.

http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
Peter T. Daniels
2004-08-18 12:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
Post by Holden
"Orwellian Newspeak" is a contemporary term that has it's roots in the
excerpt of 1984 he posted.
But it's only a term. The concept doesn't exist, except as failed attempts.
Even the most hardline PC speech never succeeded in preventing anyone from
thinking the thoughts it tried to weed out. And it only ever existed in
small pockets of some language communities, but never took over a language
as a whole.
Well ... the _name_ exists, the phenomenon doesn't.

(Does that help the atheist who was wondering which came first, the word
or the thing? Answer: Yes.)
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
Christopher A. Lee
2004-08-18 13:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:33:13 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
Post by Holden
"Orwellian Newspeak" is a contemporary term that has it's roots in the
excerpt of 1984 he posted.
But it's only a term. The concept doesn't exist, except as failed attempts.
Even the most hardline PC speech never succeeded in preventing anyone from
thinking the thoughts it tried to weed out. And it only ever existed in
small pockets of some language communities, but never took over a language
as a whole.
Well ... the _name_ exists, the phenomenon doesn't.
Actually, it does. Ever tried to hold a conversation with a religious
fanatic, anti-abortion fanatic or creationist?

They have their own inside-their-group meanings for the words you and
they both use.

It makes it impossible to get ideas across.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Does that help the atheist who was wondering which came first, the word
or the thing? Answer: Yes.)
Peter T. Daniels
2004-08-18 13:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:33:13 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
Post by Holden
"Orwellian Newspeak" is a contemporary term that has it's roots in the
excerpt of 1984 he posted.
But it's only a term. The concept doesn't exist, except as failed attempts.
Even the most hardline PC speech never succeeded in preventing anyone from
thinking the thoughts it tried to weed out. And it only ever existed in
small pockets of some language communities, but never took over a language
as a whole.
Well ... the _name_ exists, the phenomenon doesn't.
Actually, it does. Ever tried to hold a conversation with a religious
fanatic, anti-abortion fanatic or creationist?
Not since the Chicago premiere of *The Last Temptation of Christ*. There
was a huge mob of them outside the Biograph (Moody Bible Institute is
just down the street). That was fun!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They have their own inside-their-group meanings for the words you and
they both use.
It makes it impossible to get ideas across.
No, it just takes patience and explanation. "Thought control by
language" simply does not exist.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Does that help the atheist who was wondering which came first, the word
or the thing? Answer: Yes.)
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
Christopher A. Lee
2004-08-18 14:04:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:42:31 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:33:13 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
Post by Holden
"Orwellian Newspeak" is a contemporary term that has it's roots in the
excerpt of 1984 he posted.
But it's only a term. The concept doesn't exist, except as failed attempts.
Even the most hardline PC speech never succeeded in preventing anyone from
thinking the thoughts it tried to weed out. And it only ever existed in
small pockets of some language communities, but never took over a language
as a whole.
Well ... the _name_ exists, the phenomenon doesn't.
Actually, it does. Ever tried to hold a conversation with a religious
fanatic, anti-abortion fanatic or creationist?
Not since the Chicago premiere of *The Last Temptation of Christ*. There
was a huge mob of them outside the Biograph (Moody Bible Institute is
just down the street). That was fun!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They have their own inside-their-group meanings for the words you and
they both use.
It makes it impossible to get ideas across.
No, it just takes patience and explanation. "Thought control by
language" simply does not exist.
I suggest you get hold of a copy of "The Mind of the Bible BEliever"
by Edmund Cohen.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Does that help the atheist who was wondering which came first, the word
or the thing? Answer: Yes.)
Peter T. Daniels
2004-08-18 14:18:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Well ... the _name_ exists, the phenomenon doesn't.
Actually, it does. Ever tried to hold a conversation with a religious
fanatic, anti-abortion fanatic or creationist?
Not since the Chicago premiere of *The Last Temptation of Christ*. There
was a huge mob of them outside the Biograph (Moody Bible Institute is
just down the street). That was fun!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They have their own inside-their-group meanings for the words you and
they both use.
It makes it impossible to get ideas across.
No, it just takes patience and explanation. "Thought control by
language" simply does not exist.
I suggest you get hold of a copy of "The Mind of the Bible BEliever"
by Edmund Cohen.
Hmm, that wouldn't be an atheist propaganda tract, would it? When was it
written, and what are Mr. Cohen's credentials?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Does that help the atheist who was wondering which came first, the word
or the thing? Answer: Yes.)
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
Christopher A. Lee
2004-08-18 14:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:18:17 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Well ... the _name_ exists, the phenomenon doesn't.
Actually, it does. Ever tried to hold a conversation with a religious
fanatic, anti-abortion fanatic or creationist?
Not since the Chicago premiere of *The Last Temptation of Christ*. There
was a huge mob of them outside the Biograph (Moody Bible Institute is
just down the street). That was fun!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They have their own inside-their-group meanings for the words you and
they both use.
It makes it impossible to get ideas across.
No, it just takes patience and explanation. "Thought control by
language" simply does not exist.
I suggest you get hold of a copy of "The Mind of the Bible BEliever"
by Edmund Cohen.
Hmm, that wouldn't be an atheist propaganda tract, would it? When was it
written, and what are Mr. Cohen's credentials?
What a revealing paragraph.

The ad hominem. Attack it instead of responding.

No it isn't.

There is no such thing as an "Atheist propaganda tract" in spite of
the fantasies of the religious. Because "atheist" doesn't mean what
they imagine. It is as much of a non-event as not believing in Santa
Claus.

But your answer is "no". It isn't. Cohen is a psychologist and a Jew,
who briefly became embroiled infundamentalist christianity, and
afterwards analysed how and why.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Does that help the atheist who was wondering which came first, the word
or the thing? Answer: Yes.)
Brian M. Scott
2004-08-18 18:54:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:46:44 GMT, "Christopher A. Lee"
<***@optonline.net> wrote in
<news:***@4ax.com> in
alt.atheism,sci.lang:

[...]
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is no such thing as an "Atheist propaganda tract" in spite of
the fantasies of the religious.
Nonsense. Propaganda needn't be false, and some atheists,
unfortunately, have the mindset of fundamentalists.

[...]

Brian
Christopher A. Lee
2004-08-18 19:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:54:43 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:46:44 GMT, "Christopher A. Lee"
[...]
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is no such thing as an "Atheist propaganda tract" in spite of
the fantasies of the religious.
Nonsense. Propaganda needn't be false, and some atheists,
unfortunately, have the mindset of fundamentalists.
Nope. They REACT to fundamentalists.

But how does this excuse your falsehoods?
Post by Brian M. Scott
[...]
Brian
Brian M. Scott
2004-08-18 20:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:20:48 GMT, "Christopher A. Lee"
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:54:43 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
Post by Brian M. Scott
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:46:44 GMT, "Christopher A. Lee"
[...]
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is no such thing as an "Atheist propaganda tract" in spite of
the fantasies of the religious.
Nonsense. Propaganda needn't be false, and some atheists,
unfortunately, have the mindset of fundamentalists.
Nope. They REACT to fundamentalists.
Sometimes by behaving very much like the more obnoxious
sorts of fundamentalist. 'Born-again atheists' seem to be
more prone to such behavior than those of us who never had
any use for religion in the first place.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But how does this excuse your falsehoods?
I offered none; I merely corrected your error.
Harlan Messinger
2004-08-18 16:03:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:33:13 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
Post by Holden
"Orwellian Newspeak" is a contemporary term that has it's roots in the
excerpt of 1984 he posted.
But it's only a term. The concept doesn't exist, except as failed attempts.
Even the most hardline PC speech never succeeded in preventing anyone from
thinking the thoughts it tried to weed out. And it only ever existed in
small pockets of some language communities, but never took over a language
as a whole.
Well ... the _name_ exists, the phenomenon doesn't.
Actually, it does. Ever tried to hold a conversation with a religious
fanatic, anti-abortion fanatic or creationist?
They have their own inside-their-group meanings for the words you and
they both use.
It makes it impossible to get ideas across.
No, it just makes it tricky. They key is to recognize that the people
involved are interpreting the words differently, and to set aside the
labels and discuss the underlying concepts directly.

Consider someone who uses "bad" to mean "really, really good", as it
came to be used in urban youth slang some years ago. So maybe he'd say
an athlete he and you both admire is "bad". You'd say, "No, he isn't."
Then you'd discover that you were just understanding "bad" to mean
different things--and that you actually agreed. Because whether or not
you agree about the qualities of the athlete are conceptual, and the
disparity in the words you two would use to describe your impressions
doesn't change that.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Christopher A. Lee
2004-08-18 17:25:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:03:23 -0400, Harlan Messinger
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:33:13 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
Post by Holden
"Orwellian Newspeak" is a contemporary term that has it's roots in the
excerpt of 1984 he posted.
But it's only a term. The concept doesn't exist, except as failed attempts.
Even the most hardline PC speech never succeeded in preventing anyone from
thinking the thoughts it tried to weed out. And it only ever existed in
small pockets of some language communities, but never took over a language
as a whole.
Well ... the _name_ exists, the phenomenon doesn't.
Actually, it does. Ever tried to hold a conversation with a religious
fanatic, anti-abortion fanatic or creationist?
They have their own inside-their-group meanings for the words you and
they both use.
It makes it impossible to get ideas across.
No, it just makes it tricky. They key is to recognize that the people
involved are interpreting the words differently, and to set aside the
labels and discuss the underlying concepts directly.
And when they have redefined those words too?
Harlan Messinger
2004-08-18 18:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:03:23 -0400, Harlan Messinger
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:33:13 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
Post by Holden
"Orwellian Newspeak" is a contemporary term that has it's roots in the
excerpt of 1984 he posted.
But it's only a term. The concept doesn't exist, except as failed attempts.
Even the most hardline PC speech never succeeded in preventing anyone from
thinking the thoughts it tried to weed out. And it only ever existed in
small pockets of some language communities, but never took over a language
as a whole.
Well ... the _name_ exists, the phenomenon doesn't.
Actually, it does. Ever tried to hold a conversation with a religious
fanatic, anti-abortion fanatic or creationist?
They have their own inside-their-group meanings for the words you and
they both use.
It makes it impossible to get ideas across.
No, it just makes it tricky. They key is to recognize that the people
involved are interpreting the words differently, and to set aside the
labels and discuss the underlying concepts directly.
And when they have redefined those words too?
Then that would become apparent as well and the parties would deal with it.
I've already illustrated how people deal with these situations; their
ability to do so doesn't peter out.
Christopher A. Lee
2004-08-18 19:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:34:02 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:03:23 -0400, Harlan Messinger
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:33:13 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
Post by Holden
"Orwellian Newspeak" is a contemporary term that has it's roots in
the
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
Post by Holden
excerpt of 1984 he posted.
But it's only a term. The concept doesn't exist, except as failed
attempts.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
Even the most hardline PC speech never succeeded in preventing anyone
from
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
thinking the thoughts it tried to weed out. And it only ever existed
in
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
small pockets of some language communities, but never took over a
language
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
as a whole.
Well ... the _name_ exists, the phenomenon doesn't.
Actually, it does. Ever tried to hold a conversation with a religious
fanatic, anti-abortion fanatic or creationist?
They have their own inside-their-group meanings for the words you and
they both use.
It makes it impossible to get ideas across.
No, it just makes it tricky. They key is to recognize that the people
involved are interpreting the words differently, and to set aside the
labels and discuss the underlying concepts directly.
And when they have redefined those words too?
Then that would become apparent as well and the parties would deal with it.
I've already illustrated how people deal with these situations; their
ability to do so doesn't peter out.
No, you haven't. You've asserted it.
Wolfgang Schwanke
2004-08-18 02:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:40:51 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Again, I thought it was obvious that I was mocking him for taking the
appearance of a concept in a work of fiction as proof that things *do*
work that way.
Which of course I wan't doing. But then you knew that anyway, troll.
The appendix is not part of the fiction but the background.
The appendix of "1984" is fiction. It pretends to explain the
technicalities of a language and a social background which never existed.
"Oceania" never existed. "Ingsoc" never existed. "Newspeak" never
existed. It's all made up.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
We've all seen this kind of linguistic thought control - AND THIS IS
THE REASON IT IS CALLED ORWELLIAN NEWSPEAK.
No we have not. We have, at best, observed attempts at language control
motivated to make certain thoughts unexpressable, which are in this sense
comparable to "Newspeak". But none of the real-world attempts worked. The
concept appears to be impossible.

Next: Arabic is not "Newspeak". It is a naturally evolved language with
the same expressiveness as any other. Unfortunately I don't speak it, but
I'm sure the concept "god does not exist" is expressible in it. You just
need to take their phrase "<x> does not exist", whatever it might be,
plug in the word "god" for <x>, and there you are. Works in any language.
Can someone who speaks Arabic please post a translation? Likewhise there
are zillions of atheists with Arab as a mother tongue, so why shouldn't
they have a word for "atheist"? Can someone who speaks Arabic please post
it?

The post which started this thread is obviously a bigotted attempt at
political hate speech, American xenophoby mixed with ideological
arrogance or something like that. I'm puzzled why anyone would seriously
believe such nonsense.
--
I want my MDR

http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
Pieter
2004-08-18 03:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
The appendix of "1984" is fiction. It pretends to explain the
technicalities of a language and a social background which never existed.
"Oceania" never existed. "Ingsoc" never existed. "Newspeak" never
existed. It's all made up.
To the extent that it's parody you could say it has its roots in reality
though (not to mention the power and bearings of literature as such, or
are writers and artists really the powerless jesters some would have
them be after all?), if I recall correctly it had everything to do with
Orwell's disappointments with the Russian revolution and his experiences
in the Spanish Civil War. And we all know such recent examples as
Operation Enduring Freedom or what was it called and the likes. Does
that work to twist people's minds? Well it seems to do, to a degree.

Anyway I agree, why even continue a thread based on such silly premises
("low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam"' blah blah) in the first place.
So pardon me too for getting mixed in and I'll move on to other things.

Cheers,

Pieter
Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
The post which started this thread is obviously a bigotted attempt at
political hate speech, American xenophoby mixed with ideological
arrogance or something like that. I'm puzzled why anyone would
seriously
Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
believe such nonsense.
Peter T. Daniels
2004-08-18 12:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
Can someone who speaks Arabic please post a translation? Likewhise there
are zillions of atheists with Arab as a mother tongue, so why shouldn't
they have a word for "atheist"? Can someone who speaks Arabic please post
it?
Yusuf, as expected, already provided the information!
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
Puck Greenman
2004-08-18 15:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wolfgang Schwanke
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:40:51 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Again, I thought it was obvious that I was mocking him for taking the
appearance of a concept in a work of fiction as proof that things *do*
work that way.
Which of course I wan't doing. But then you knew that anyway, troll.
The appendix is not part of the fiction but the background.
The appendix of "1984" is fiction. It pretends to explain the
technicalities of a language and a social background which never existed.
"Oceania" never existed. "Ingsoc" never existed. "Newspeak" never
existed. It's all made up.
Oh for fuck's sake! Another idiot.


Sin bin for you.

--
Puck Greenman

#162

BAAWA Knight.

Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
Brian M. Scott
2004-08-17 16:06:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:04:29 +0200, "W. Syme"
Post by W. Syme
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:57:20 -0400, Harlan Messinger
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by W. Syme
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the Martian
atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands of tree seeds on
it and watching them grow overnight with the first rain, just because Ray
Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
Is your points that things that are in books are by definition
impossible?
I thought it was obvious that I was mocking him for taking the
appearance of a concept in a work of fiction as proof that things *do*
work that way.
So because cars feature in Harry Potter books, I take it you see them
as purely fictional as well?
One must be remarkably dim to confuse 'Some things in books
are false' (Harlan's point) with 'All things in books are
false'.
Christopher A. Lee
2004-08-17 13:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:57:20 -0400, Harlan Messinger
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by W. Syme
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the Martian
atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands of tree seeds on
it and watching them grow overnight with the first rain, just because Ray
Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
Is your points that things that are in books are by definition
impossible?
I thought it was obvious that I was mocking him for taking the
appearance of a concept in a work of fiction as proof that things *do*
work that way.
I didn't, troll. The appendix is Orwell's explanation and
justification for newspeak, doublethink etc.

It is not part of the novel.

But in any case we've all seen this kind of thought control.
Christopher A. Lee
2004-08-17 11:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Ron Hardin
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
Orwellian newspeak. Which is actually two words.
[text snipped]
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the Martian
atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands of tree seeds on
it and watching them grow overnight with the first rain, just because Ray
Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
Where did I ever say that? Hint: I didn't. Are you really this stupid,
or just pretending?

However linguistic thought control is a fact of life.
Harlan Messinger
2004-08-17 11:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by W. Syme
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Ron Hardin
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
Orwellian newspeak. Which is actually two words.
[text snipped]
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the Martian
atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands of tree seeds on
it and watching them grow overnight with the first rain, just because Ray
Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
Where did I ever say that? Hint: I didn't. Are you really this stupid,
or just pretending?
Where did I ever say that you said that? Hint: I didn't. Are you
really this stupid, or just pretending?
Post by W. Syme
However linguistic thought control is a fact of life.
Bullshit.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Christopher A. Lee
2004-08-17 13:40:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:59:30 -0400, Harlan Messinger
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by W. Syme
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Ron Hardin
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
Orwellian newspeak. Which is actually two words.
[text snipped]
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the Martian
atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands of tree seeds on
it and watching them grow overnight with the first rain, just because Ray
Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
Where did I ever say that? Hint: I didn't. Are you really this stupid,
or just pretending?
Where did I ever say that you said that? Hint: I didn't. Are you
really this stupid, or just pretending?
You asked me if I thought that, moron. Which was being deliberately
stupid on your part.

Why did you invent such a stupid caricature instead of addressing the
response?
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by W. Syme
However linguistic thought control is a fact of life.
Bullshit
Bullshit yourself.

As an American what is your mental image when you see the word
"liberal"?
Harlan Messinger
2004-08-17 15:43:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:59:30 -0400, Harlan Messinger
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by W. Syme
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:29:58 GMT, Ron Hardin
Post by Ron Hardin
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
Orwellian newspeak. Which is actually two words.
[text snipped]
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the Martian
atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands of tree seeds on
it and watching them grow overnight with the first rain, just because Ray
Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
Where did I ever say that? Hint: I didn't. Are you really this stupid,
or just pretending?
Where did I ever say that you said that? Hint: I didn't. Are you
really this stupid, or just pretending?
You asked me if I thought that, moron.
Apparently you think that asking someone whether he thinks X (which is what
I did) is the same thing as telling him that he said X (which is not what I
did). If you are incapable of grasping such an basic distinction, then
there's no point trying to discuss anything with you. In fact, there isn't
any point in your trying to discuss anything with anyone.
Harlan Messinger
2004-08-17 17:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:59:30 -0400, Harlan Messinger
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Christopher A. Lee
However linguistic thought control is a fact of life.
Bullshit
Bullshit yourself.
As an American what is your mental image when you see the word
"liberal"?
If you think that's a relevant question, then you don't even understand the
issue. There's no denying that different people will have different
understandings of the meaning of a particular word. There's no denying that
you can influence people through rhetoric. Neither of these has any bearing
on whether you can control people's thoughts by eliminating from their
vocabularies words that describe certain concepts. It's manifestly false
that people's concepts rely on the language necessary to express them. If it
were true, then nobody would ever have been capable of conceiving
sufficiently of complex concepts to have named them in the first place.
Peter T. Daniels
2004-08-17 12:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by W. Syme
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Ron Hardin
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
Orwellian newspeak. Which is actually two words.
[text snipped]
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the Martian
atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands of tree seeds on
it and watching them grow overnight with the first rain, just because Ray
Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
Where did I ever say that? Hint: I didn't. Are you really this stupid,
or just pretending?
However linguistic thought control is a fact of life.
And that claim is why Harlan posted his list of other fantasies found in
well-known works of fiction.
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
Christopher A. Lee
2004-08-17 13:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:31:56 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by W. Syme
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Ron Hardin
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
Orwellian newspeak. Which is actually two words.
[text snipped]
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the Martian
atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands of tree seeds on
it and watching them grow overnight with the first rain, just because Ray
Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
Where did I ever say that? Hint: I didn't. Are you really this stupid,
or just pretending?
However linguistic thought control is a fact of life.
And that claim is why Harlan posted his list of other fantasies found in
well-known works of fiction.
Duh. WHILE 1984 WAS FICTION, THE APPENDIX WASN'T IT WAS THE
BACKGROUND, AND DESCRIBED AMONG OTHER THINGS WHY THE NOVEL USED
NEWSPEAK.
Harlan Messinger
2004-08-17 15:45:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:31:56 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by W. Syme
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
Post by Harlan Messinger
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:29:58 GMT, Ron Hardin
Post by Ron Hardin
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
Orwellian newspeak. Which is actually two words.
[text snipped]
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the Martian
atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands of tree seeds on
it and watching them grow overnight with the first rain, just because Ray
Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
Where did I ever say that? Hint: I didn't. Are you really this stupid,
or just pretending?
However linguistic thought control is a fact of life.
And that claim is why Harlan posted his list of other fantasies found in
well-known works of fiction.
Duh. WHILE 1984 WAS FICTION, THE APPENDIX WASN'T IT WAS THE
BACKGROUND,
LOL. Yeah, it was background--as *part of the story*. It wasn't a quotation
from a scientific journal or anything like that. It wasn't a newspaper
report. It was *fiction*. Good grief.
Holden
2004-08-17 20:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harlan Messinger
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:29:58 GMT, Ron Hardin
Post by Ron Hardin
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a
concept don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
Orwellian newspeak. Which is actually two words.
[text snipped]
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the
Martian atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands
of tree seeds on it and watching them grow overnight with the first
rain, just because Ray Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian
Chronicles"?
You know that whooshing sound you heard as you read his post? That was the
sound of his point going over your head.
Harlan Messinger
2004-08-18 18:36:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Holden
Post by Harlan Messinger
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:29:58 GMT, Ron Hardin
Post by Ron Hardin
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a
concept don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
Orwellian newspeak. Which is actually two words.
[text snipped]
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because Aldous
Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that the
Martian atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting thousands
of tree seeds on it and watching them grow overnight with the first
rain, just because Ray Bradbury imagined it that way in "The Martian
Chronicles"?
You know that whooshing sound you heard as you read his post? That was the
sound of his point going over your head.
What part of

"It's thought control by language. When the words
to describe a concept don't exist, the concept no longer exists."

did I miss?
Holden
2004-08-18 19:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Holden
Post by Harlan Messinger
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:29:58 GMT, Ron Hardin
Post by Ron Hardin
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a
concept don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
Orwellian newspeak. Which is actually two words.
[text snipped]
Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because
Aldous Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or that
the Martian atmosphere can be made easy to breath by planting
thousands of tree seeds on it and watching them grow overnight with
the first rain, just because Ray Bradbury imagined it that way in
"The Martian Chronicles"?
You know that whooshing sound you heard as you read his post? That
was the sound of his point going over your head.
What part of
"It's thought control by language. When the words
to describe a concept don't exist, the concept no longer exists."
did I miss?
The part where he explained what the word was and posted the source of the
word - and most importantly, *where he didn't say it was true or false*. You
jumped the gun in your haste to prove that Orwell's concept didn't fit
reality (well, duh, it's fiction designed to magnify and examine an
another-wise subtle and possibly non-existant concept - it's designed to
make you think, not make you believe) when the original post was simply a
factual explanation of the source of the term. Whether one can control
thought by limiting language is immaterial to the statement - "We need a
word for this". Newspeak *is* the word, it's doesn't matter if the
underlying concept is true or not.
Tron Furu
2004-08-16 23:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ron Hardin
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
Sapirwhorfhypothesis. Ungainly, though.

T
Peter T. Daniels
2004-08-17 12:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tron Furu
Post by Ron Hardin
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
We need a word for this.
Sapirwhorfhypothesis. Ungainly, though.
The correct name for that is "principle of linguistic relativity," and
what Whorf suggested bears little to no relation to the way your phrase
is used these days -- and Sapir explicitly denounced such an
interpretation in 1926. He wouldn't have liked Whorf attributing it to
him.
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
Bobby D. Bryant
2004-08-16 19:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
So how do we invent new stuff that doesn't have a name yet?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Mark Richardson
2004-08-17 00:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:59:07 -0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
Post by Bobby D. Bryant
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
So how do we invent new stuff that doesn't have a name yet?
It's hard. It's rare.

What's improtant the exception or the rule?

Mark.

--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau

Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)

-----------------------------------------------------
AnotherObserver®
2004-08-17 03:38:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Richardson
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:59:07 -0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
Post by Bobby D. Bryant
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
So how do we invent new stuff that doesn't have a name yet?
It's hard. It's rare.
What's improtant the exception or the rule?
Are there advancements without exception?
--
Davidwd
~~~~~~~~~
Mark Richardson
2004-08-18 03:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AnotherObserver®
Post by Mark Richardson
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:59:07 -0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
Post by Bobby D. Bryant
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
So how do we invent new stuff that doesn't have a name yet?
It's hard. It's rare.
What's improtant the exception or the rule?
Are there advancements without exception?
No.


There were people who objected to the activities of the Red Gaurds in
the cultural revolution. Did their objections stop the mobs?

(No the party elite eventually called a stop to it - it was doing huge
damage to the economy/infrastructure and ultimately might hurt them.)

What about the people that objected to the activities of the Nazi's -
did their individual protests against the abuses of the mob - stop
Nazism dead in its tracks?
(No - the Nazi elite decided to purge the S.A. and reign in its power
- lest it become a danger to *them*)

Some people questioned the dogma of the church in the middle ages -
did the church collapse?
Or did the individual -exceptional thinkers keep their thoughts to
themselves or die horibly?

So it seems that at least in many places and at many times its the
rule not the exception that prevails.

Mark.

--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau

Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)

-----------------------------------------------------
Harlan Messinger
2004-08-17 21:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Richardson
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:59:07 -0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
Post by Bobby D. Bryant
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
So how do we invent new stuff that doesn't have a name yet?
It's hard. It's rare.
Normally the word comes first? Normally someone says, "I'll invent a
name that doesn't already exist, thereby leaving a vacancy that will
enable someone to come up with a new concept to which to apply it"?
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Mark Richardson
2004-08-18 02:18:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:22:19 -0400, Harlan Messinger
Post by Harlan Messinger
Post by Mark Richardson
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:59:07 -0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
Post by Bobby D. Bryant
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
So how do we invent new stuff that doesn't have a name yet?
It's hard. It's rare.
Normally the word comes first? Normally someone says, "I'll invent a
name that doesn't already exist, thereby leaving a vacancy that will
enable someone to come up with a new concept to which to apply it"?
No.
Being individual - thinking new thoughts - inventing new things - is
hard.
Seeing everything - even *new* things - in old ways is the norm.

That is, there is a kind of "inertia" in society and a reluctance to
accept the new.

Mark.

--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau

Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)

-----------------------------------------------------
Puck Greenman
2004-08-17 15:21:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:59:07 -0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
Post by Bobby D. Bryant
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
So how do we invent new stuff that doesn't have a name yet?
The invention comes first, the naming.

For the naming, we tend towards words which describe some property or
function, of the invention. The transistor was named from the words,
transfer, and resistor. Integrated circuit, IC, is more obvious, as is
"chip", silicone chip. A condenser, (capacitor) doesn't condense
electricity, even though it does appear to.
A Transformer, does just what it says, it transforms AC electricity,
into a fluctuation EM field, and then back to AC, again.

Most of the western world uses abbreviations of a devices description,
as names for the device.

...Except perhaps the German's, who's naming, not only seems to
include a description of the device, but it's family history, as well.

Hope none of our German friends notice that. (:-)
--
Puck Greenman

#162

BAAWA Knight.

Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
Jacques Guy
2004-08-17 18:05:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Warble606
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist"
I don't think you can.
What about "There is no God but God, and Muhammad is
God's Prophet?" Leave out "but God..." what are you
left with? So I'll take a guess: "la: llah"
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-08-17 14:52:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In sci.lang Jacques Guy <***@alphalink.com.au> wrote in <***@alphalink.com.au>:
: Christopher A. Lee wrote:
:
:> On 16 Aug 2004 12:09:36 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Warble606) wrote:

:> >What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
:> >things as "god doesn't exist"
:
:> I don't think you can.

: What about "There is no God but God, and Muhammad is

"there is no god but God"

la: 'ila:ha 'illa(:)~lla:hu

: God's Prophet?" Leave out "but God..." what are you
: left with? So I'll take a guess: "la: llah"

la: 'ila:ha "No deity"

la: of general denial is followed by an article-less noun (of class),
inthe unnunated accusative (the la: makes it definite). but
alla:h is a proper name and etymologically with the definite article, so
what you wrote would not be considered proper, at least strictly
speaking. (more commonly a phrase or prepositonal phrase follows).

more usual would la: yu:jadu ~lla:hu (God does not exist) (but this may
leave the possibility that Hubal (/hubal/), Zeus, Aphrodite etc. does
exist!). best would la: yu:jadu 'ila:hun (such statements are more
commonly in a noun of class in the indefinite) There is no god (No
deities whatesoever).
Warble606
2004-08-17 21:29:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
more usual would la: yu:jadu ~lla:hu (God does not exist) (but this may
leave the possibility that Hubal (/hubal/), Zeus, Aphrodite etc. does
exist!). best would la: yu:jadu 'ila:hun (such statements are more
commonly in a noun of class in the indefinite) There is no god (No
deities whatesoever).
Just curious but where is the negation (not) in la: yu:jadu 'ila:hun?
According to the dictonary I'm using on Iraqi Arabic, "not" applied
to a verb is ma-, and to exist is wujad which I am guessing is yujad in yours.
Peter T. Daniels
2004-08-17 22:24:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Warble606
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
more usual would la: yu:jadu ~lla:hu (God does not exist) (but this may
leave the possibility that Hubal (/hubal/), Zeus, Aphrodite etc. does
exist!). best would la: yu:jadu 'ila:hun (such statements are more
commonly in a noun of class in the indefinite) There is no god (No
deities whatesoever).
Just curious but where is the negation (not) in la: yu:jadu 'ila:hun?
According to the dictonary I'm using on Iraqi Arabic, "not" applied
to a verb is ma-, and to exist is wujad which I am guessing is yujad in yours.
la: is the negative.

Stop pretending to diffuse information about Arabic.
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-08-18 19:02:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Warble606
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
more usual would la: yu:jadu ~lla:hu (God does not exist) (but this may
leave the possibility that Hubal (/hubal/), Zeus, Aphrodite etc. does
exist!). best would la: yu:jadu 'ila:hun (such statements are more
commonly in a noun of class in the indefinite) There is no god (No
deities whatesoever).
Just curious but where is the negation (not) in la: yu:jadu 'ila:hun?
According to the dictonary I'm using on Iraqi Arabic, "not" applied
to a verb is ma-, and to exist is wujad which I am guessing is yujad in yours.
it's not "my" arabic, but standard / classical arabic that I presented.
in standard arabic la: + imperefect indicative is a general negation,
ma: + imperfect indicative neagtes the present.

wujad is just standard / classical wujid(a) pronounced in iraqi colloquial.
it's the 3rd pers. m. perf. , yu:jad(u) is the 3rd pers. m. imperf. indict.
Raymond Roy
2004-08-17 18:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jacques Guy
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Warble606
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist"
I don't think you can.
What about "There is no God but God, and Muhammad is
God's Prophet?" Leave out "but God..." what are you
left with? So I'll take a guess: "la: llah"
Bingo !

Raymond
Alexander Magidow
2004-08-17 01:55:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
I don't think you can. I doubt the concept even exists. Certainly the
closest they get to "atheist" is "kuffr" which is closer to apostate.
The very existence of God as God is presumed, and everybody by
definition realises this but certain people wilfully disobey it.
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
Post by Warble606
Warb.
This does indeed make me wonder how one says bullshit in
Arabic(disappointingly, not in Al-Mawrid. However it does list "hura:?"
for "poppycock"). This post is almost as bad as the parent. As with most
languages, its more or less possible to say any arbitrary phrase from
another language.
I'd guess something along the lines of "la: yeku:nu l-lla:hu", unless a
different word is more appropriate for exist. That sentence above might
be more accurately "God isn't". (yujidu "he is not found" is also
suggested by Al-Mawrid). Maybe also "lai:sa al-llaha". PTD or Yusuf
Gursey would probably know better than I.
In any case, I think the original poster would be best served by
saying(written for easy english pronunciation) "idribii min fadlik."

Alex
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-08-17 14:36:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In sci.lang Alexander Magidow <***@deleteperiod2.wisc.edu> wrote in <cfro19$3hn$***@news.doit.wisc.edu>:
: Christopher A. Lee wrote:
:> On 16 Aug 2004 12:09:36 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Warble606) wrote:
:>
:>
:>>We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
:>>by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
:>>What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
:>>things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
:>>in arabic?
:>
:>
:> I don't think you can. I doubt the concept even exists. Certainly the
:> closest they get to "atheist" is "kuffr" which is closer to apostate.
:> The very existence of God as God is presumed, and everybody by
:> definition realises this but certain people wilfully disobey it.
:>
:> It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
:> don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
:>
:>
:>>Warb.
:>
:>
: This does indeed make me wonder how one says bullshit in

"shit" is xara:'


: Arabic(disappointingly, not in Al-Mawrid. However it does list "hura:?"

"idle talk"

: for "poppycock"). This post is almost as bad as the parent. As with most
: languages, its more or less possible to say any arbitrary phrase from
: another language.
: I'd guess something along the lines of "la: yeku:nu l-lla:hu", unless a
: different word is more appropriate for exist. That sentence above might
: be more accurately "God isn't". (yujidu "he is not found" is also


la: yu:jadu ~lla:ahu

is correct.


: suggested by Al-Mawrid). Maybe also "lai:sa al-llaha". PTD or Yusuf


that woudl be "it isn't God"

: Gursey would probably know better than I.
: In any case, I think the original poster would be best served by
: saying(written for easy english pronunciation) "idribii min fadlik."


iDribni: min faDlika

: Alex
A Gwilliam
2004-08-17 05:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
I don't think you can. I doubt the concept even exists. Certainly the
closest they get to "atheist" is "kuffr" which is closer to apostate.
The very existence of God as God is presumed, and everybody by
definition realises this but certain people wilfully disobey it.
But English is similar. The usual phrase for all but the most
pedantic of atheists would be "I don't believe in God"; to me this
really means "there is a God, who I don't believe in", even though
this isn't the intended sense. And the word "atheist" is simply the
negative of "theist".
--
Andrew Gw.
Christopher A. Lee
2004-08-17 11:22:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A Gwilliam
Post by Christopher A. Lee
I don't think you can. I doubt the concept even exists. Certainly the
closest they get to "atheist" is "kuffr" which is closer to apostate.
The very existence of God as God is presumed, and everybody by
definition realises this but certain people wilfully disobey it.
But English is similar. The usual phrase for all but the most
pedantic of atheists would be "I don't believe in God"; to me this
really means "there is a God, who I don't believe in", even though
this isn't the intended sense. And the word "atheist" is simply the
negative of "theist".
To the theists for whom the actual atheist position doesn't even
exist.
M. Ranjit Mathews
2004-08-18 04:20:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A Gwilliam
Post by Christopher A. Lee
I don't think you can. I doubt the concept even exists. Certainly the
closest they get to "atheist" is "kuffr" which is closer to apostate.
The very existence of God as God is presumed, and everybody by
definition realises this but certain people wilfully disobey it.
But English is similar. The usual phrase for all but the most
pedantic of atheists would be "I don't believe in God"; to me this
really means "there is a God, who I don't believe in", even though
this isn't the intended sense. And the word "atheist" is simply the
negative of "theist".
If an atheist is simply one who lacks a belief in deities, dogs would
be atheist by virtue of lacking a belief in deities and the following
sentence would be correct, what?

"All known species of animal, other than homo sapiens, are atheist."
André Keshav
2004-08-18 07:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
If an atheist is simply one who lacks a belief in deities, dogs would
be atheist by virtue of lacking a belief in deities and the following
sentence would be correct, what?
I'd say that this notion is not applicable to them because they don't have
an alternative.
Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
"All known species of animal, other than homo sapiens, are atheist."
JessHC
2004-08-18 14:54:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
Post by A Gwilliam
Post by Christopher A. Lee
I don't think you can. I doubt the concept even exists. Certainly the
closest they get to "atheist" is "kuffr" which is closer to apostate.
The very existence of God as God is presumed, and everybody by
definition realises this but certain people wilfully disobey it.
But English is similar. The usual phrase for all but the most
pedantic of atheists would be "I don't believe in God"; to me this
really means "there is a God, who I don't believe in", even though
this isn't the intended sense. And the word "atheist" is simply the
negative of "theist".
If an atheist is simply one who lacks a belief in deities, dogs would
be atheist by virtue of lacking a belief in deities and the following
sentence would be correct, what?
"All known species of animal, other than homo sapiens, are atheist."
How many animals have you surveyed regarding this? For all you know,
other animals may think *we're* deities.
André Keshav
2004-08-18 17:30:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JessHC
Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
If an atheist is simply one who lacks a belief in deities, dogs would
be atheist by virtue of lacking a belief in deities and the following
sentence would be correct, what?
"All known species of animal, other than homo sapiens, are atheist."
How many animals have you surveyed regarding this? For all you know,
other animals may think *we're* deities.
Too bad, they're idolaters then.
Harlan Messinger
2004-08-18 18:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
Post by A Gwilliam
Post by Christopher A. Lee
I don't think you can. I doubt the concept even exists. Certainly the
closest they get to "atheist" is "kuffr" which is closer to apostate.
The very existence of God as God is presumed, and everybody by
definition realises this but certain people wilfully disobey it.
But English is similar. The usual phrase for all but the most
pedantic of atheists would be "I don't believe in God"; to me this
really means "there is a God, who I don't believe in", even though
this isn't the intended sense. And the word "atheist" is simply the
negative of "theist".
If an atheist is simply one who lacks a belief in deities, dogs would
be atheist by virtue of lacking a belief in deities and the following
sentence would be correct, what?
"All known species of animal, other than homo sapiens, are atheist."
As would teacups and saucers.
A Gwilliam
2004-08-17 05:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
I don't think you can. I doubt the concept even exists. Certainly the
closest they get to "atheist" is "kuffr" which is closer to apostate.
The very existence of God as God is presumed, and everybody by
definition realises this but certain people wilfully disobey it.
But English is similar. The usual phrase for all but the most
pedantic of atheists would be "I don't believe in God"; to me this
really means "there is a God, who I don't believe in", even though
this isn't the intended sense. And the word "atheist" is simply the
negative of "theist".
--
Andrew Gw.
Jacques Guy
2004-08-17 22:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A Gwilliam
But English is similar. The usual phrase for all but the most
pedantic of atheists would be "I don't believe in God"; to me this
really means "there is a God, who I don't believe in", even though
this isn't the intended sense.
Ah. "I don't believe in a geocentric universe." Therefore, there
is one.

"I don't believe in little green men on Mars". Therefore,
Mars is populated by little green men.

"I don't believe that the moon is made of green cheese."
Therefore, the moon is probably a big ball of Stilton.
Rather, a plateful of Stilton, since I don't believe in
a flat earth, nor in a flat moon.
A Gwilliam
2004-08-17 13:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jacques Guy
Post by A Gwilliam
But English is similar. The usual phrase for all but the most
pedantic of atheists would be "I don't believe in God"; to me this
really means "there is a God, who I don't believe in", even though
this isn't the intended sense.
Ah. "I don't believe in a geocentric universe." Therefore, there
is one.
<etc>

You appear to have missed my point; I was making a point about use of
language, not trying to argue philosophy/theology/whatever. A vaguely
similar thing is a phrase I saw the other day, describing being gay as
"following an alternative lifestyle"; the guy meant well by what he
was saying, but completely missed the point.

Anyway, the examples you give are things, rather than
personifications. If you said "I don't believe in the Chief of
Police", maybe you'll see what I meant.
--
Andrew Gw.
nobody
2004-08-17 09:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
I don't think you can. I doubt the concept even exists.
A case of a fool giving advice to a troll... Which concept, pray tell,
do you think doesn't exist in Arabic? "God", "existance" or "dog
shit"?
Yusuf B Gursey
2004-08-17 14:57:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In sci.lang Christopher A. Lee <***@optonline.net> wrote in <***@4ax.com>:
: On 16 Aug 2004 12:09:36 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Warble606) wrote:

:>We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
:>by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
:>What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
:>things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
:>in arabic?

: I don't think you can. I doubt the concept even exists. Certainly the
: closest they get to "atheist" is "kuffr" which is closer to apostate.
: The very existence of God as God is presumed, and everybody by
: definition realises this but certain people wilfully disobey it.

: It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
: don't exist, the concept no longer exists.

the usual translation of "atheist" is mulHid . originally "heretic" it
came to mean at an early date (medieval times) to mean someone who is out
of religon in general, i.e. an atheist, a materialist. it was used in
anti-Ismaili polemics. th echarge against their gnostic type beliefs was
that tehy were crypto-atheists. see Enc. of Islam II "Mulhid" fo r a
discussion.
ziliath
2004-08-17 18:18:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
I don't think you can. I doubt the concept even exists. Certainly the
closest they get to "atheist" is "kuffr" which is closer to apostate.
The very existence of God as God is presumed, and everybody by
definition realises this but certain people wilfully disobey it.
But arabic the language predates the orwellian nightmare known as islam.
Surely there is a word; I would thik one could look in other semitic languages
to find a clue to what it might be in arabic.
LP
2004-08-17 19:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:25:36 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
I don't think you can. I doubt the concept even exists. Certainly the
closest they get to "atheist" is "kuffr" which is closer to apostate.
The very existence of God as God is presumed, and everybody by
definition realises this but certain people wilfully disobey it.
It's thought control by language. When the words to describe a concept
don't exist, the concept no longer exists.
Post by Warble606
Warb.
"Thought control" through language as you describe has been discounted
long ago.

If you are interested, there is an excellent book that discusses the
idea and describes why this kind of "thought control" is impossible.

The Language Instinct, by Steven Pinker
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060958332
Herb Martin
2004-08-16 19:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
You might ask here:

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/main.htm

If there is an Arabic version of he site then they must
have dealt with such issues either in the traditional
was (???) or by inventing terminology.
wbarwell
2004-08-17 15:53:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Herb Martin
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/main.htm
If there is an Arabic version of he site then they must
have dealt with such issues either in the traditional
was (???) or by inventing terminology.
Actually, early Islam had a rather rich terminology for religous
skeptics of various shades.
--
Senator Waxman's searchable database of iraq war lies.
www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
A good portal to more lies and Bush stupidity is to be found at
www.failureisimpossible.com - Go to the index and go to
"L" for lies. All you need to know about Bush when you
step into the voting booth. Bush is a liar and surrounds
himself with fellow liars.

Cheerful Charlie
David Canzi -- non-mailable address
2004-08-16 20:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
Every language has its ambiguities. When translated into Arabic,
the sentences "There is no God" and "Kill me and drag my body behind
a truck" sound exactly alike.
--
David Canzi "Nonconformists travel as a rule in bunches. You rarely find
a nonconformist who goes it alone. And woe to him inside a
nonconformist clique who does not conform with nonconformity."
-- Eric Hoffer
Hagar
2004-08-16 21:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
Try this:
"Allah Poopoo Kaka Arf-arf"
Yang, AthD (h.c)
2004-08-17 03:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hagar
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
"Allah Poopoo Kaka Arf-arf"
Isn't "kaka" an Italian term?


-----

Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec

The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -942 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting

Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless
André Keshav
2004-08-17 13:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
Is that your way to demonstrate that you have higher IQ?
Warble606
2004-08-17 18:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by André Keshav
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
Is that your way to demonstrate that you have higher IQ?
Logically, my disdain for religious fascism (islam) is not proof
of higher IQ, just as my disdain for Adolf Hitler isn't either,
since many stupid people happen to dislike fascism. However if a
person tells me that (s)he is a muslim and implicitly agrees that killing
infidels (which the koran commands) is A-OK with him/her, I shall
gladly tell him/her that (s)he is a moron. Granted however, brain-damage
may also be the root cause of his/her intolerance+hate.
Peter T. Daniels
2004-08-17 21:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Warble606
Post by André Keshav
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
Is that your way to demonstrate that you have higher IQ?
Logically, my disdain for religious fascism (islam) is not proof
of higher IQ, just as my disdain for Adolf Hitler isn't either,
since many stupid people happen to dislike fascism. However if a
person tells me that (s)he is a muslim and implicitly agrees that killing
infidels (which the koran commands) is A-OK with him/her, I shall
gladly tell him/her that (s)he is a moron. Granted however, brain-damage
may also be the root cause of his/her intolerance+hate.
Let's have chapter and verse for that "command," please?

Oh, and is Islam the only "fascist" religion?
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
Warble606
2004-08-18 19:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Warble606
Post by André Keshav
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
Is that your way to demonstrate that you have higher IQ?
Logically, my disdain for religious fascism (islam) is not proof
of higher IQ, just as my disdain for Adolf Hitler isn't either,
since many stupid people happen to dislike fascism. However if a
person tells me that (s)he is a muslim and implicitly agrees that killing
infidels (which the koran commands) is A-OK with him/her, I shall
gladly tell him/her that (s)he is a moron. Granted however, brain-damage
may also be the root cause of his/her intolerance+hate.
Let's have chapter and verse for that "command," please?
Read at your leisure all of Sura 9.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Oh, and is Islam the only "fascist" religion?
No, there is also multinational capitalism, that too is fascistic.
Kermit
2004-08-17 21:48:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Warble606
Post by André Keshav
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
Is that your way to demonstrate that you have higher IQ?
Logically, my disdain for religious fascism (islam) is not proof
of higher IQ, just as my disdain for Adolf Hitler isn't either,
since many stupid people happen to dislike fascism. However if a
person tells me that (s)he is a muslim and implicitly agrees that killing
infidels (which the koran commands) is A-OK with him/her, I shall
gladly tell him/her that (s)he is a moron. Granted however, brain-damage
may also be the root cause of his/her intolerance+hate.
You haven't contributed to the genepool, yet, have you?

Kermit
M. Ranjit Mathews
2004-08-18 04:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
How reliable is your method of measuring peoples' IQ by their mantras?
This mantra has been heard Abdus Salam who's IQ certainly wasn't low.
Post by Warble606
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
Would you say, "ogre doesn't exist" or "ogre is dogshit" in English?
duke
2004-08-18 10:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
Easy, have a friend separate your head from your shoulders.

They'll get the message and take care of the problem all in one.

duke
*****
1 Corinthians 4
15Even though you have ten thousand guardians in
Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ
Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
*****
JessHC
2004-08-18 14:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
Easy, have a friend separate your head from your shoulders.
They'll get the message and take care of the problem all in one.
Absolutely fucking amazing. You've packed virtually everything
dispicable about you and your dangerous religion in one non-sequitur,
23 word post; violence, intolerance, arrogance, hate, stupidity,
ignorance, bigotry. Bravo.
Warble606
2004-08-18 21:05:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
Easy, have a friend separate your head from your shoulders.
He who cannot win an argument with words will become
a brute and use violence, like an animal.
Warble606
2004-08-18 21:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
Easy, have a friend separate your head from your shoulders.
He who cannot win an argument with words will become
a brute and use violence, like an animal.

jwk
2004-08-18 13:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Warble606
We so often hear the mindless manta "god is great"
by low-IQ people who subscribe to "islam" as a religion.
What I really want to know is, how do I say such useful
things as "god doesn't exist", or "god is dogshit"
in arabic?
Warb.
Just say it in English. They all understand that. As long as you
speak loudly and slowly.

jwk
Loading...