Print

Print


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)

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.
>