> Answer the questions put to you Cladking
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition...
> > Not counting nouns there are barely 1000 words
> > Ancient Language. There are a large number of
> > nouns and only a small percentage appear in the
> > and CT.
> You just made up those numbers, there is nothing
> called the 'Ancient Language".
> Answer the questions above as they will be
> repeated until you do.
> Example: the numbers are made up
> Modern English: 500,000 words
> Ancient Egyptian: 10,000 words
> Separate words in the PT: 1,000
> So what sort of mad logic tells you that part of a
> language that has maybe 1,000 words in it will
> contain all the words in modern language 500 times
> as large?
> What does this word mean?
> Explain please
Well, it's not as if I think cladking is using the right arguments to try to dispel notions about superstitious ancients (I'm not sure what the right argument would actually be or I'd be flinging it I suppose) but I'm not sure these are the right arguments to counter with either.
I think cladking sounds like he's doing the "Dragons of Eden" thing that Carl Sagan taught us, sort of a conceit among atheist scientists that science saved them from superstition when of course we can find scientists who belong to faiths or sects or cults.
I think cladking has a very good sense if even intuitively that religious writings might be something other than a bunch of pointless, superstitious rot, just as I like to think I have myself, even if they're not much good at face value. I personally think ancients Egyptians with mythical text must have often been making allusion to things like astronomy - enough of the Greek or Roman gods are planets that there'd be no shock there, right? - and had a tremendous gift for both hyperbole and breathless prose.
It occurs to me to at least try to point out that to try to paint an entire people with the same brush must be precarious at best. Does having three churches within five blocks of my home actually tell you that I subscribe to any of them?
For that matter, does indigenous people continuing to hand down folktales and oral traditions mean that anyone "in the know" interprets them in any "gospel" sense? The local tribe has a folk legend about "three sisters" which turn out to be a distinctive set of three peaks that served as an important geographic landmark for travelers. I don't know why that doesn't serve in itself as exemplary of the way some cultures see their own myths, and the sort of knowledge (rather than superstition) that goes into the creation of a myth.
I suppose for purposes of debate this eventually begs the question whether anyone anyone being so dismissive of cladking affords room for any ancient Egyptians or Greeks or Romans to have been atheists?
It also occurs to me ask that if - okay, say this language has only 1000 words in it - but if they were so deeply superstitious that religious ideas held such an incredible amount of sway in their societies, why wouldn't words like "faith" or "belief" be part of their limited lexicon?
Wouldn't it seem like if they were so deeply devout, words like that would be important enough to make it into their vocabulary?
Not that I think that will settle the matter, but maybe it does seem worth asking?
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 15-Jan-20 06:27 by thinkitover.