Print

Print


On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Matthew Turnbull <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I myself am an atheist, but I'm sorry I brought the subject up, because it
> does seem to be spiralling a little out of control, even to the point that
> people are getting offended, and Sai indeed I agree that the name is quite
> well known to be sacred and even though I do use it when speaking to my
> atheist friends, where it cannot easily or at all cause offence, there seem
> to be enough people of those who can take offence on the list to avoid
> using
> it for politeness's sake if for no other reason.
>
>
> To get back to the original discussion, I think that any classificatory
> system that was simple, would indeed be far too simple, because such a
> system would have to capture the beliefs of a person in whole, and not in
> part, to be of much use in an englang, whereas an artlang could probably
> get
> away with a us/them distinction.
>
> Things I've seen in the disccusion that would need to be included are
>
> +/- atheist
> +/- monotheist
> +/- polytheist
> +/- afterlife
> +/- reincarnation
> +/- omnipotent god
> +/- omniscient god
> +/- cyclictical world (the world will end / there is no end, only a cycle)
>
> you could use feature encoding in an englang, like so
>
> +/- athiest = +/- round
> +/- monotheist = +/- high
> +/- polytheist = +/- back
> +/- afterlife = alveolar/velar
> +/- reincarnation = +/- cluster with /l/
> +/- omnipotent god = +/- frication
> +/- omniscient god = +/- coda
> +/- cyclictical world (the world will end / there is no end, only a cycle)
> =
> +/- nasal
> +/- preordained times of worship (coda matches onset/coda is disimilar from
> onset)
>

This is basically what I was talking about. I do know I oversimplified a bit
(...a lot) but it would be a way of stating your religion without having to
explain all about everything. It would be words more specific than
"monotheistic" but less specific than "Christian" (Jewish, Buddhist,
etcetera). Anyway, it was just theoretical. I would expect many people to be
highly offended by this sort of 'standardization' of religion.

But I love standardizations (like the Kinsey scale, which some people say is
rude and limiting). They make my world make sense.

I'm not trying to offend anyone though. I'm a Wiccan, and you should see me
around people who believe all Wiccans are Satanists... :P

>
> you could mark the words with thier class with a prefix, say [kiki]
> so a thing that might describe a certain sect of christianity from a
> certain
> point of view would be  +/-/+/-/+/+/-/+ :  a monotheistic people that
> belive
> in and afterlife, but not reincarnation, have a god who is both omnipotent
> and omniscient, and who believe the world will end (or at least this world
> will end), and who worship thier god at specific times. so that view of
> christianity would be called [kikisit]
>
> Without discussing the point of view of a particular religion, which is
> pretty much irrelevent, what other features are imporatant to religions in
> general, not nessecarily the culture associated with the religion, but with
> the worship itself
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Nathan Schulzke <[log in to unmask]
> >wrote:
>
> > Seriously.  It's an interesting discussion, but really has no place here.
> > Just because it's a discussion of atheism doesn't mean it's not a
> violation
> > of NCNC.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Isaac Penziev <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/8/10, Adam Walker wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >  Sai, I am sorry, but could you please stop with the casual
> > >> use/misuse/abuse of the sacred name? I do not pronounce it out of
> > >> respect, and I am cringing over here at the way you have been so
> > >> doing. Adam
> > >>
> > >
> > > I join this appeal.
> > > And btw guys, don't you think the discussion went too far? NCNC rule is
> > not
> > > suspended or made null and void yet.
> > >
> > > With respect,
> > > -- Y.
> >
>