On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:02:39 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote: > If he isn't enjoying the tour I'm sorry about that. You're right, > these things can be gruelling by all accounts. In some places he /can/ > do with the publicity, America he needs to work on... and I think they > need to hear his message ("All gods are bastards").
I doubt the Americans will take to that - they'll literally slaughter him like they did with poor John Lennon! Maybe Pterry would be better off keeping his message a little more subtle with the Americans - I hear they're pretty religious over there, though I stand to be corrected!
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:00:16 -0400, Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>>> ten
>>>>> You will all want to look up the origins of the word >>>>> "fornicator" at some point soon.
>>>> Checking Etymonline, I find it's from fornus = "oven of >>>> arched or domed shape". >>>> I guess it's one of the intermediate meanings you want us >>>> to find, like fornix = vault.
>> Yep, that has the potential to be a very interesting pun in a >> book about the banking industry.
> Interestingly, the word "vault" has the same etymology as "vulva".
As far as I know, a vault is also a burial chamber, a domed underground chamber, or a really high/long leap, but I've never heard it called a *vulva* before, "aaarrrggghhh"! :-(.
Sofia wrote: > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:00:16 -0400, Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>>>> ten
>>>>>> You will all want to look up the origins of the word >>>>>> "fornicator" at some point soon. >>>>> Checking Etymonline, I find it's from fornus = "oven of >>>>> arched or domed shape". >>>>> I guess it's one of the intermediate meanings you want us >>>>> to find, like fornix = vault. >>> Yep, that has the potential to be a very interesting pun in a >>> book about the banking industry. >> Interestingly, the word "vault" has the same etymology as "vulva".
> As far as I know, a vault is also a burial chamber, a domed underground > chamber, or a really high/long leap, but I've never heard it called a > *vulva* before, "aaarrrggghhh"! :-(.
That is not what he said. Etymology is the study of the descent of words, not synonyms. I.e. he claims that "vault" and "vulva" are both derived from the same source. The OED does *not* confirm this statement.
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:00:02 +0100, Sofia wrote: > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:02:39 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> If he isn't enjoying the tour I'm sorry about that. You're right, >> these things can be gruelling by all accounts. In some places he /can/ >> do with the publicity, America he needs to work on... and I think they >> need to hear his message ("All gods are bastards").
> I doubt the Americans will take to that - they'll literally slaughter > him like they did with poor John Lennon! Maybe Pterry would be better > off keeping his message a little more subtle with the Americans - I hear > they're pretty religious over there, though I stand to be corrected!
Oddly enough, Richard Dawkins has been over here for over a week on a signing/reading tour for "The God Delusion" and has yet to be lynched or stoned. And that includes appearances in Bible Beltia, where he's had good reception and a standing ovation or two. His tour journal is entertaining:
Alec Cawley <a...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote: > Sofia wrote: >> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:00:16 -0400, Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>> Interestingly, the word "vault" has the same etymology as "vulva".
>> As far as I know, a vault is also a burial chamber, a domed >> underground chamber, or a really high/long leap, but I've never >> heard it called a *vulva* before, "aaarrrggghhh"! :-(.
> That is not what he said. Etymology is the study of the descent of > words, not synonyms. I.e. he claims that "vault" and "vulva" are both > derived from the same source. The OED does *not* confirm this > statement.
That depends on what you mean by OED -- Oxford English Dictionary or Online Etymology Dictionary. The latter does agree that both words have "volvere" (roll) as a common ancestor. What does Oxford say?
Sofia wrote: > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:02:39 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> If he isn't enjoying the tour I'm sorry about that. You're right, >> these things can be gruelling by all accounts. In some places he /can/ >> do with the publicity, America he needs to work on... and I think they >> need to hear his message ("All gods are bastards").
> I doubt the Americans will take to that - they'll literally slaughter him > like they did with poor John Lennon! Maybe Pterry would be better off > keeping his message a little more subtle with the Americans - I hear > they're pretty religious over there, though I stand to be corrected!
Well. Some of us (I use 'us' here only because I live in the US, though I'm Canadian) are. And then again, some of us aren't. A lot like the rest of the world, really. Some of the ones who are have really big mouths and lots of money, sadly.
Arthur Hagen wrote: > Alec Cawley <a...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote: >> Sofia wrote: >>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:00:16 -0400, Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>>> Interestingly, the word "vault" has the same etymology as "vulva".
>>> As far as I know, a vault is also a burial chamber, a domed >>> underground chamber, or a really high/long leap, but I've never >>> heard it called a *vulva* before, "aaarrrggghhh"! :-(.
>> That is not what he said. Etymology is the study of the descent of >> words, not synonyms. I.e. he claims that "vault" and "vulva" are both >> derived from the same source. The OED does *not* confirm this >> statement.
> That depends on what you mean by OED -- Oxford English Dictionary or > Online Etymology Dictionary. The latter does agree that both words have > "volvere" (roll) as a common ancestor. What does Oxford say?
It says that "vulva" is the Latin word "vulva", wrapper or uterus.
> Arthur Hagen wrote: >> Alec Cawley <a...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote: >>> Sofia wrote: >>>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:00:16 -0400, Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>>>> Interestingly, the word "vault" has the same etymology as "vulva".
>>>> As far as I know, a vault is also a burial chamber, a domed >>>> underground chamber, or a really high/long leap, but I've never >>>> heard it called a *vulva* before, "aaarrrggghhh"! :-(.
>>> That is not what he said. Etymology is the study of the descent of >>> words, not synonyms. I.e. he claims that "vault" and "vulva" are both >>> derived from the same source. The OED does *not* confirm this >>> statement.
>> That depends on what you mean by OED -- Oxford English Dictionary or >> Online Etymology Dictionary. The latter does agree that both words have >> "volvere" (roll) as a common ancestor. What does Oxford say?
> It says that "vulva" is the Latin word "vulva", wrapper or uterus.
Uterus? Are you sure? Or I suppose I mean are Fowler and his successors sure? I would think the Romans had a better idea of anatomy than that.
-- Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, changing spelling and spacing as required.
Lesley Weston wrote: > in article 4qc6dvFmfrv...@individual.net, Alec Cawley at a...@spamspam.co.uk > wrote on 26/10/2006 9:35 AM:
> > Arthur Hagen wrote: > >> Alec Cawley <a...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote: > >>> Sofia wrote: > >>>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:00:16 -0400, Arthur Hagen wrote:
> >>>>> Interestingly, the word "vault" has the same etymology as "vulva".
> >>>> As far as I know, a vault is also a burial chamber, a domed > >>>> underground chamber, or a really high/long leap, but I've never > >>>> heard it called a *vulva* before, "aaarrrggghhh"! :-(.
> >>> That is not what he said. Etymology is the study of the descent of > >>> words, not synonyms. I.e. he claims that "vault" and "vulva" are both > >>> derived from the same source. The OED does *not* confirm this > >>> statement.
> >> That depends on what you mean by OED -- Oxford English Dictionary or > >> Online Etymology Dictionary. The latter does agree that both words have > >> "volvere" (roll) as a common ancestor. What does Oxford say?
> > It says that "vulva" is the Latin word "vulva", wrapper or uterus.
> Uterus? Are you sure? Or I suppose I mean are Fowler and his successors > sure? I would think the Romans had a better idea of anatomy than that.
The Romans had a reasonably good idea of anatomy. They also didn't feel obliged to use words of their own native language in such a way as to match the technical vocabulary for which they were going to be borrowed 2,000 years later... :-)
The basic meaning of "vulva" is covering, wrapper, such as the shell of a nut. As such it can be used for the female, er, reproductive cavity since it "covers" the developing foetus. The word "uterus" in Latin more specifically refers to the womb - although cognates in other languages refer to other parts of the female reproductive equipment, such as the English word "udder".
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:49:06 +0000, David Sewell wrote: > Oddly enough, Richard Dawkins has been over here for over a week on a > signing/reading tour for "The God Delusion" and has yet to be lynched or > stoned. And that includes appearances in Bible Beltia, where he's had good > reception and a standing ovation or two. His tour journal is entertaining:
I found website on my google, it says that they're all religious SF/F authors. I noticed Stephen Fry, Stephen King, Douglas Adams C.S.Lewis and loads of others amongst them. I hate to admit it, but I love the work of all of them, but being an atheist myself, I was keeping my fingers crossed Pterry wouldn't be there, and he hasn't appeared thank god - not yet anyway! :-)
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:49:06 +0000, David Sewell wrote:
>> Oddly enough, Richard Dawkins has been over here for over >> a week on a signing/reading tour for "The God Delusion" >> and has yet to be lynched or stoned. And that includes >> appearances in Bible Beltia, where he's had good reception >> and a standing ovation or two. His tour journal is >> entertaining:
> I found website on my google, it says that they're all > religious SF/F authors. I noticed Stephen Fry, Stephen > King, Douglas Adams C.S.Lewis and loads of others amongst > them. I hate to admit it, but I love the work of all of > them, but being an atheist myself, I was keeping my fingers > crossed Pterry wouldn't be there, and he hasn't appeared > thank god - not yet anyway! :-)
While the actual website appears to be something to do with religion, the page in question appears not to, instead being a curious mix of lists ranging from "won a major award" to "may have inspired Babylon 5", none of which seem to have anything to do with religion. I can reassure you that Douglas Adams was definitely an atheist and I have a feeling I read somewhere his friend Stephen Fry is as well.
C.S. Lewis, on the other hand, was very, very Christian.
-- Dave Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc http://sesoc.eusa.ed.ac.uk/ "The need to compile lists is a personality disorder, as is the need to assert the superiority of some things over other things." -Jeremy Hardy
> I found website on my google, it says that they're all religious SF/F > authors. I noticed Stephen Fry, Stephen King, Douglas Adams C.S.Lewis and > loads of others amongst them. I hate to admit it, but I love the work of > all of them, but being an atheist myself, I was keeping my fingers crossed > Pterry wouldn't be there, and he hasn't appeared thank god - not yet > anyway! :-)
Actually, I think these are primarily lists of well known sf/f authors along with their religious beliefs - if known. Entries include Poul Anderson (agnostic), Fritz Leiber (Neo-Pagan) and Isaac Asimov (atheist) amongst others. As far as I can tell, the site is trying to correlate how an author's beliefs (or lack thereof) influences their writing. Having said that, a lot of the list-criteria that were used to determine which authors to include appear to be a good 6 years or more out of date. Also, since the selection criteria seems to be skewed towards Hugo and Nebula award et al pre 2000, it's not suprising that Terry isn't listed [1].
in article pan.2006.10.27.16.42.03.532...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com, Sofia at pinkmonster2000REM...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com wrote on 27/10/2006 9:42 AM:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:49:06 +0000, David Sewell wrote:
>> Oddly enough, Richard Dawkins has been over here for over a week on a >> signing/reading tour for "The God Delusion" and has yet to be lynched or >> stoned. And that includes appearances in Bible Beltia, where he's had good >> reception and a standing ovation or two. His tour journal is entertaining:
I don't seem to have David's post, so I'll reply to Sofie's. Richard Dawkin's journal is indeed entertaining, like all his writing, but I find it odd that he should be so evangelical about atheism. Surely the rational stance is that it doesn't matter what people believe, so long as they don't try to force their beliefs onto other people? Yet RD seems to getting all upset because he's encountering Christians and presumably people of other religions - as upset as a fundamentalist would be on encountering atheists - and he seems to be as anxious to convert religionists to atheism as fundamentalists are to convert atheists (and the "wrong" religionists) to their own faith. V. peculiar.
-- Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, changing spelling and spacing as required.
Lesley Weston wrote: > in article pan.2006.10.27.16.42.03.532...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com, Sofia at > pinkmonster2000REM...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com wrote on 27/10/2006 9:42 AM:
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:49:06 +0000, David Sewell wrote:
>>> Oddly enough, Richard Dawkins has been over here for over a week on a >>> signing/reading tour for "The God Delusion" and has yet to be lynched or >>> stoned. And that includes appearances in Bible Beltia, where he's had good >>> reception and a standing ovation or two. His tour journal is entertaining:
> I don't seem to have David's post, so I'll reply to Sofie's. Richard > Dawkin's journal is indeed entertaining, like all his writing, but I find it > odd that he should be so evangelical about atheism. Surely the rational > stance is that it doesn't matter what people believe, so long as they don't > try to force their beliefs onto other people? Yet RD seems to getting all > upset because he's encountering Christians and presumably people of other > religions - as upset as a fundamentalist would be on encountering atheists - > and he seems to be as anxious to convert religionists to atheism as > fundamentalists are to convert atheists (and the "wrong" religionists) to > their own faith. V. peculiar.
I liked the description of Dawkins as "Atheism's answer to the Jehovah's Witnesses". I am certainly an atheist, but I find Dawkins deeply embarrassing. Even if you think you are right, you don't have to be so rude about it.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:55:11 GMT, Lesley Weston wrote: > in article pan.2006.10.27.16.42.03.532...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com, Sofia at > pinkmonster2000REM...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com wrote on 27/10/2006 9:42 AM:
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:49:06 +0000, David Sewell wrote:
>>> Oddly enough, Richard Dawkins has been over here for over a week on a >>> signing/reading tour for "The God Delusion" and has yet to be lynched or >>> stoned. And that includes appearances in Bible Beltia, where he's had good >>> reception and a standing ovation or two. His tour journal is entertaining:
> I don't seem to have David's post, so I'll reply to Sofie's. Richard > Dawkin's journal is indeed entertaining, like all his writing, but I find it > odd that he should be so evangelical about atheism. Surely the rational > stance is that it doesn't matter what people believe, so long as they don't > try to force their beliefs onto other people? Yet RD seems to getting all > upset because he's encountering Christians and presumably people of other > religions - as upset as a fundamentalist would be on encountering atheists - > and he seems to be as anxious to convert religionists to atheism as > fundamentalists are to convert atheists (and the "wrong" religionists) to > their own faith. V. peculiar.
From a particular perspective, religion is a very frightening thing. For a start, most people who claim to be religious haven't thought very much about it, or indeed made a conscious decision to believe in their God(s).
As Betrand Russell said: "Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
The implications of millions of people acting in what are, from an objective point of view, very strange ways are scary. What does that imply about the rest of their actions? Or all their decisions? And these people can vote. In fact, a lot of the people they're voting for think (or not) exactly the same way. And they have power.
And the ones who have made conscious choices - if you're starting from the perspective that science and rationality is quite obviously the only reasonable way to think about things, then to have otherwise rational people make these bizarre choices is deeply worrying: What kind of humans are we sharing the Earth with? If they believe in these things, what kind of irrational things will they do? How can we ever trust them to behave predictably?
And if you believe that the only way to behave sensibly is to think things through using logic and evidence and that religion is nothing but irrational superstition, then you come to the conclusion that the whole world is screwed up, that you're sharing it with primitive fools who are obviously leading us towards subjugation, destruction and death. Being sane in a world full of madness is not a comfortable thing.
...but Dawkins might not think that way at all. I think a lot of atheists do, but the ones who aren't complete gits manage to supress it when actually talking to the (usually quite nice) people who do believe in things.
>> I found website on my google, it says that they're all religious SF/F >> authors. I noticed Stephen Fry, Stephen King, Douglas Adams C.S.Lewis and >> loads of others amongst them. I hate to admit it, but I love the work of >> all of them, but being an atheist myself, I was keeping my fingers crossed >> Pterry wouldn't be there, and he hasn't appeared thank god - not yet >> anyway! :-)
> Actually, I think these are primarily lists of well known sf/f authors > along with their religious beliefs - if known. Entries include Poul > Anderson (agnostic), Fritz Leiber (Neo-Pagan) and Isaac Asimov (atheist) > amongst others. As far as I can tell, the site is trying to correlate > how an author's beliefs (or lack thereof) influences their writing. > Having said that, a lot of the list-criteria that were used to determine > which authors to include appear to be a good 6 years or more out of > date. Also, since the selection criteria seems to be skewed towards Hugo > and Nebula award et al pre 2000, it's not suprising that Terry isn't > listed [1].
OK, you win, I found him in your first list, but I couldn't be sure if he was in your blackwidows one though - so Pterry's a religious Fantasy writer, and I luv him too OK!
I also mentioned at the end of my thread that Pterry hadn't appeared YET in the list - I think I must have been talking to myself, because he just hadn't appeared before my eyes in the religious authors list yet, but it seems obvious he's appeared now - I'll back down with pride. :-(
Sofie
PS. I'm still coming to see you at the Guildhall next month Pterry, so don't do a runner because I'm an atheist! :-)
Sofia wrote: > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:27:30 +0100, esmi wrote:
>> on 27/10/2006 17:42 Sofia said the following:
>>> I found website on my google, it says that they're all religious SF/F >>> authors. I noticed Stephen Fry, Stephen King, Douglas Adams C.S.Lewis and >>> loads of others amongst them. I hate to admit it, but I love the work of >>> all of them, but being an atheist myself, I was keeping my fingers crossed >>> Pterry wouldn't be there, and he hasn't appeared thank god - not yet >>> anyway! :-)
>>> http://www.adherents.com/lit/sf_lists.html >> Actually, I think these are primarily lists of well known sf/f authors >> along with their religious beliefs - if known. Entries include Poul >> Anderson (agnostic), Fritz Leiber (Neo-Pagan) and Isaac Asimov (atheist) >> amongst others. As far as I can tell, the site is trying to correlate >> how an author's beliefs (or lack thereof) influences their writing. >> Having said that, a lot of the list-criteria that were used to determine >> which authors to include appear to be a good 6 years or more out of >> date. Also, since the selection criteria seems to be skewed towards Hugo >> and Nebula award et al pre 2000, it's not suprising that Terry isn't >> listed [1].
> OK, you win, I found him in your first list, but I couldn't > be sure if he was in your blackwidows one though - so Pterry's a religious > Fantasy writer, and I luv him too OK!
> I also mentioned at the end of my thread that Pterry hadn't appeared YET > in the list - I think I must have been talking to myself, because he > just hadn't appeared before my eyes in the religious authors list yet, but > it seems obvious he's appeared now - I'll back down with pride. :-(
> Sofie
> PS. I'm still coming to see you at the Guildhall next month Pterry, so > don't do a runner because I'm an atheist! :-)
I don't see how you can characterize Terry as a religious writer when he is a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association - an organization which is a-religious if not positively a-theist. You don't have to be an atheist to be a member of the BHA but it certainly helps.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:19:43 +0100, Peter Burlingham wrote:
>> PS Please, please, please, please, after you've finished Making Money, >> start your next Rincewind book instead of another Tiffany one!
> He'll never finish making money, he's far too popular an author!
> *Boom Boom*
> Sorry, that was worse than awful. It was nearly Chuckle Brothers > territory. I'm deeply ashamed.
I think Quinn began this thread saying he was going to write another Tiffany novel called "I Shall Wear Midnight" - but I have only just bought Wintersmith, and I haven't even began it yet!
We spoke to Pterry in a thread earlier this year I think, and I was complaining that he did too much Vimes, and that my favourite character was Rincewind. I don't remember exactly what he said, so he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he answered that he was writing another Rincewind novel, plus another novel with a mystery character.
Well I think that the mystery character turned out to be Moist Von Lipwig, with MM, but seriously, I've been waiting long enough for the next Rincewind novel - how long does a girl have to wait.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:52:22 +0100, James Mitchelhill
<ja...@disorderfeed.net> wrote: >And if you believe that the only way to behave sensibly is to think things >through using logic and evidence and that religion is nothing but >irrational superstition, then you come to the conclusion that the whole >world is screwed up, that you're sharing it with primitive fools who are >obviously leading us towards subjugation, destruction and death. Being sane >in a world full of madness is not a comfortable thing.
That's pretty much my take on it. And no, it's not terribly fun. About the only way I've managed to keep going is knowing that -
1) The world's survived so far, even being run by loonies. Of course, up until recently those loonies didn't have the capacity to physically wipe every trace of humanity off the face of the planet.
2) Even if things do deteriorate, Australia (and Perth specifically) are very unlikely targets. Or at least Australia _was_ an unlikely target until the current Prime Minister started following George Bush around and flapping his gob about terrorism at every opportunity.
3) Some of the irrational things people do are still predictable. Basic human psychology means most people tend to act in certain ways rather that utterly randomly. Culture plays a part, too - understand someone's culture and you'll at least be able to make a ballpark guess on their likely reaction to certain situations. Then there's psychological and personality stereotypes which, while not 100% accurate in all cases, can provide hints. And of course, the better you know someone personally, the less unpredictable they seem to become.
4) As a very, _very_ rough approximation, people en masse and on average are fairly willing to be at least minimally nice, helpful and raised to keep the wheels of society and personal interaction turning. This contributes a bias towards things working out more often than they don't.
5) There's a lot of talent, rational thought and incredible experiences out there, in amongst the crud. It can be mentally very refreshing to go find some and wallow in it for a bit. It gives hope.
<pinkmonster2000REM...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com> wrote: >Well I think that the mystery character turned out to be Moist Von Lipwig, >with MM, but seriously, I've been waiting long enough for the next >Rincewind novel - how long does a girl have to wait.
Given the amount of popular characters readers want to see more of, there really needs to be about six or twelve Terrys writing continuously.
The time: 28 Oct 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The speaker: Sofia <pinkmonster2000REM...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com>
> OK, you win, I found him in your first list, but I couldn't > be sure if he was in your blackwidows one though - so > Pterry's a religious Fantasy writer, and I luv him too OK!
No, he isn't. Well, he's a writer of religious fantasy (Small Gods), but he's not a fantasy writer who's religious. In the original Discworld Companion, he describes himself as "an atheist of the old-fashioned, angry-with-God-for-not-existing type".
The list has nothing to do with religion, it's an explanation of how adherents.com worked out who their "Famous SF&F Authors" should be for the list-of-famous-writers-by-religion here:
And note that appearing on *that* list doesn't make you religous either: a lot of people are listed as agnostic, atheist or Humanist.
-- Dave Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc http://sesoc.eusa.ed.ac.uk/ "The need to compile lists is a personality disorder, as is the need to assert the superiority of some things over other things." -Jeremy Hardy
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:13:00 +0800, SteveD wrote: > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:52:22 +0100, James Mitchelhill > <ja...@disorderfeed.net> wrote:
>>And if you believe that the only way to behave sensibly is to think things >>through using logic and evidence and that religion is nothing but >>irrational superstition, then you come to the conclusion that the whole >>world is screwed up, that you're sharing it with primitive fools who are >>obviously leading us towards subjugation, destruction and death. Being sane >>in a world full of madness is not a comfortable thing.
> That's pretty much my take on it. And no, it's not terribly fun. About the > only way I've managed to keep going is knowing that -
Ah, this is where I disagree. I'm quite convinced that religious people are dangerously insane, but I'm also convinced that everyone else is. Including myself. Science is just a way of making sense out of the craziness - and it only works on aggregate.
> 1) The world's survived so far, even being run by loonies. Of course, up > until recently those loonies didn't have the capacity to physically wipe > every trace of humanity off the face of the planet.
"Run" seems like overstating things a bit. In order to run something, you have to understand it. And the world's much too complicated to be understood.
Then again, reading the news recently feels suspiciously close to drowning.
Lesley Weston wrote: > I don't seem to have David's post, so I'll reply to Sofie's. Richard > Dawkin's journal is indeed entertaining, like all his writing, but I find it > odd that he should be so evangelical about atheism. Surely the rational > stance is that it doesn't matter what people believe, so long as they don't > try to force their beliefs onto other people? Yet RD seems to getting all > upset because he's encountering Christians and presumably people of other > religions - as upset as a fundamentalist would be on encountering atheists - > and he seems to be as anxious to convert religionists to atheism as > fundamentalists are to convert atheists (and the "wrong" religionists) to > their own faith. V. peculiar.
Regardless of where you lie upon the theism/atheism line (devout theist, uncommitted theist, implicit atheist, explicit atheist) and even along the perpendicular measure of knowing-agnosticism (how much of your personal philosophy you are certain, and how much is faith/trust/interpretation), there would be at least a third perpendicular dimension to your attitude, which is how reactionary you are with your attitude faced with opposing opinions, a large amount of reactionariness will 'preach' (in actuality or figuratively) at those of the opinions in some way in opposition to theirs[1] and at the other end would be the introvert who keeps their opinions to themselves.
Dawkins might be considered to be a reactionary, knowing, explicit atheist, much as a firebrand preacher might be described as a reactionary, knowing, devout theist. Two adjacent vertices of the same cube, as it were, just either end of a single edge. And probably viewed much the same to your average atheist-sided person as some of these bible-belt preachers[2] are to your more average believer of the same. Of course, the same (to a far greater and different degree) can doubtless be said with Dawkins-to-believers as preacher-to-atheists.
For the record, I would place myself as a demi-reactionary, agnostic, implicit atheist. Most of the time I don't know, don't care, don't really think there's anything to think about and don't try to convince people that I'm right[3], but I can be uncomfortable with those who display signs of unwavering certainty (where it goes beyond mere pragmatism[4]), and especially take umbrage against anyone who tries to impose the word of $god on me[5] or fora I belong to, or dare to say that Pascal's Wager is of any actual value in the grand scheme of things. None of this is a great part of my life, though, however many words I attach to the concept.
[1] Whether that be in the theist-atheist direction, knowing-agnosticism, or even the poor non-reactionaries otherwise roughly aligned with them on the prior two axes who "should be doing more to state their opinion".
[2] Even not taking into account some of the complications of differing interpretations, or even raw hypocrisies committed by some famous cases.
[3] i.e. That you can't know, that you're going to be at least as well in the long run off being be good towards the mortal world as showing off for some heavenly arbiter, regardless, and see no reason why there should be one, but wouldn't be able to say there /isn't/ one either.
[4] Dawkins makes me mildly uncomfortable in some regards, even though I'm within range of his philosophy and think he's more likely to be right in the final assessment of ultimate definites.
[5] I do tolerantly receive copies of Watchtower that some nice ladies keep bringing round. They can be good reads and uplifting in a philosophical manner, even if I disagree with some of the assumptions and concepts and precepts.
Alec Cawley <a...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote: > Arthur Hagen wrote: > > Alec Cawley <a...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote: > >> Sofia wrote: > >>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:00:16 -0400, Arthur Hagen wrote:
> >>>> Interestingly, the word "vault" has the same etymology as "vulva".
> >>> As far as I know, a vault is also a burial chamber, a domed > >>> underground chamber, or a really high/long leap, but I've never > >>> heard it called a *vulva* before, "aaarrrggghhh"! :-(.
> >> That is not what he said. Etymology is the study of the descent of > >> words, not synonyms. I.e. he claims that "vault" and "vulva" are both > >> derived from the same source. The OED does *not* confirm this > >> statement.
> > That depends on what you mean by OED -- Oxford English Dictionary or > > Online Etymology Dictionary. The latter does agree that both words have > > "volvere" (roll) as a common ancestor. What does Oxford say?
> It says that "vulva" is the Latin word "vulva", wrapper or uterus.
That only means that the OED only includes information necessary for understanding the etymology of the English word. Vulva means what it does in English because it meant what it did in Latin, and evolved from there through the middle ages. It meant what it did in Latin because it actually _is_ related to volvere, which means to roll. This is interesting to us, but not necessarily to someone studying English.
BTW: does this mean that my Volvo, unlike other cars, is not a Freudian replacement for the penis?
|
