(September 1, 2019 at 6:33 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(September 1, 2019 at 12:48 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: And isn't what the Dawkin's quote says an obvious truth?

My Latin is next to non-existent. (I meant to say that in the past, in general, when Dawkins talks about theology he makes a lot of mistakes.)

Does the quote translate to something like: "What theology says is not clear, and when it's clear it's false"?

That's a very big claim. Does it mean to include ALL of theology? Is it true, by definition, that no statement in the field of theology can be both clear and true?

Well, approximately. It's supposed to say: "Theology has never said anything, that is not obvious, and that isn't false." (Though I don't know if I translated that correctly.)
Perhaps, if there is some ambiguity (and I don't think that there is, especially in the context in which Dawkins said it), it would be a good thing to paraphrase that as "Theology has never said anything that is neither obvious nor false.", and translate that with some even more complicated grammatical structure involving "neque" and subjunctives.

(September 2, 2019 at 1:52 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(September 1, 2019 at 6:33 pm)Belaqua Wrote: My Latin is next to non-existent. (I meant to say that in the past, in general, when Dawkins talks about theology he makes a lot of mistakes.)

Does the quote translate to something like: "What theology says is not clear, and when it's clear it's false"?

That's a very big claim. Does it mean to include ALL of theology? Is it true, by definition, that no statement in the field of theology can be both clear and true?

Well, approximately. It's supposed to say: "Theology has never said anything, that is not obvious, and that isn't false." (Though I don't know if I translated that correctly.)
Perhaps, if there is some ambiguity (and I don't think that there is, especially in the context in which Dawkins said it), it would be a good thing to paraphrase that as "Theology has never said anything that is neither obvious nor false.", and translate that with some even more complicated grammatical structure involving "neque" and subjunctives.

I think I found the original:

Quote:When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious?

https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/quotatio...s_god.html

Somebody tried to respond to me on a Latin forum. If you ask me, the response is rather ridiculous, you can see it, along with my response to his arguments, here.

(September 2, 2019 at 2:50 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Somebody tried to respond to me on a Latin forum. If you ask me, the response is rather ridiculous, you can see it, along with my response to his arguments, here.

I like those things where you take English and translate it to another language and then back into English. 

This is what I get when, as a non-Latin user, I retranslate the last post in that thread:

Quote: Can the powerful rock is so serious (not light) do it so that he would not be able to move?

I love the image of a very serious rock. Thinking so seriously about things that he can't move. 

The Surrealists lived too soon! Google translate and random remote control use would make their jobs easy.

(September 2, 2019 at 2:28 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(September 2, 2019 at 1:52 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Well, approximately. It's supposed to say: "Theology has never said anything, that is not obvious, and that isn't false." (Though I don't know if I translated that correctly.)
Perhaps, if there is some ambiguity (and I don't think that there is, especially in the context in which Dawkins said it), it would be a good thing to paraphrase that as "Theology has never said anything that is neither obvious nor false.", and translate that with some even more complicated grammatical structure involving "neque" and subjunctives.

I think I found the original:

Quote:When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious?

https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/quotatio...s_god.html

LOL!!! That theology is useless was discovered and said way before Dawkins. But first, if you really want to be a critic of Dawkins try reading some of his books.

Now, For instance Thomas Paine in 1795 concluded that the study of God, his nature, and his attributes—is as useless at understanding reality:

Quote:The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not any thing can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is not the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.

Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

(September 2, 2019 at 3:38 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(September 2, 2019 at 2:28 am)Belaqua Wrote: I think I found the original:


https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/quotatio...s_god.html

LOL!!! That theology is useless was discovered and said way before Dawkins. But first, if you really want to be a critic of Dawkins try reading some of his books.

Now, For instance Thomas Paine in 1795 concluded that the study of God, his nature, and his attributes—is as useless at understanding reality:

Quote:The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not any thing can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is not the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.

Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

You might enjoy the posthumously published writings of Jean Meslier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meslier

(September 2, 2019 at 2:28 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(September 2, 2019 at 1:52 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Well, approximately. It's supposed to say: "Theology has never said anything, that is not obvious, and that isn't false." (Though I don't know if I translated that correctly.)
Perhaps, if there is some ambiguity (and I don't think that there is, especially in the context in which Dawkins said it), it would be a good thing to paraphrase that as "Theology has never said anything that is neither obvious nor false.", and translate that with some even more complicated grammatical structure involving "neque" and subjunctives.

I think I found the original:

Quote:When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious?

https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/quotatio...s_god.html

Anyway, I think now a better translation would be: "Theologia numquam dixit aliquid, quod neque perspicuum fuisset, neque falsum fuisset.". If Google Translate understands it, so would probably anybody who tries to read Latin.
I've inserted a few corrections into my essay, you can read it near the bottom of this web-page.

(September 2, 2019 at 4:11 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(September 2, 2019 at 2:28 am)Belaqua Wrote: I think I found the original:


https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/quotatio...s_god.html

Anyway, I think now a better translation would be: "Theologia numquam dixit aliquid, quod neque perspicuum fuisset, neque falsum fuisset.". If Google Translate understands it, so would probably anybody who tries to read Latin.
I've inserted a few corrections into my essay, you can read it near the bottom of this web-page.

For that, Google gives me: "Theology never said anything that was neither transparent nor was false."

Which I think is the same meaning as the original, but the double negatives kind of make me do a double take. 

I don't know anything at all about the habits of Latin, though, so it's probably a lot clearer that way. 

I switch back and forth between English and Japanese all the time. (Mostly I speak Japanese in daily life.) And I've found that it just makes trouble to start with a sentence in one language and try to mash it into the other. It's better just to start thinking in one language and formulate the sentence, because a natural expression won't carry over. 

I wish I had that fluency in Latin!

(September 2, 2019 at 2:59 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(September 2, 2019 at 2:50 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Somebody tried to respond to me on a Latin forum. If you ask me, the response is rather ridiculous, you can see it, along with my response to his arguments, here.

I like those things where you take English and translate it to another language and then back into English. 

This is what I get when, as a non-Latin user, I retranslate the last post in that thread:

Quote: Can the powerful rock is so serious (not light) do it so that he would not be able to move?

I love the image of a very serious rock. Thinking so seriously about things that he can't move. 

The Surrealists lived too soon! Google translate and random remote control use would make their jobs easy.

Yes, unfortunately, "gravis" (whence "gravity") can mean both "heavy" and "serious". Though I don't think there would be any ambiguity to a human reader. First, "heavy rock" makes a by orders of magnitude more sense than "serious rock". Second, "heavy" is the primary meaning of "gravis", "serious" is only a metaphorical meaning. Third, I put "not light" in the parentheses, in case there is any ambiguity.

---

(September 2, 2019 at 5:10 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(September 2, 2019 at 4:11 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Anyway, I think now a better translation would be: "Theologia numquam dixit aliquid, quod neque perspicuum fuisset, neque falsum fuisset.". If Google Translate understands it, so would probably anybody who tries to read Latin.
I've inserted a few corrections into my essay, you can read it near the bottom of this web-page.

For that, Google gives me: "Theology never said anything that was neither transparent nor was false."

Which I think is the same meaning as the original, but the double negatives kind of make me do a double take. 

I don't know anything at all about the habits of Latin, though, so it's probably a lot clearer that way. 

I switch back and forth between English and Japanese all the time. (Mostly I speak Japanese in daily life.) And I've found that it just makes trouble to start with a sentence in one language and try to mash it into the other. It's better just to start thinking in one language and formulate the sentence, because a natural expression won't carry over. 

I wish I had that fluency in Latin!

Well, Latin is probably easier to learn than Japanese. For Latin, you don't need to learn any Kanjis, or even the Kanas. Latin uses the same alphabet as English and Croatian (the other two languages I speak) use. And the Latin vocabulary is a lot more familiar than Japanese vocabulary. Both English and Croatian are full of Latin words (I don't know how it is for modern Japanese, but it's certainly less full of Latin words than English is, and probably even less than Croatian.), while they contain few to no Japanese words.

(September 1, 2019 at 3:36 am)Belaqua Wrote: I think it's great you could write that in Latin. I wish I could do as much.

If the content is to be as important as the language, though, I think you'll have to rise above the level of quoting Dawkins. He's not someone who can be taken seriously on the topic of theology.

Says a random on the internet about an accomplished, respected intellectual and author of several books including the best-seller The God Delusion.

The arrogance is astounding. What have you accomplished in the real world Bel? Besides pretending to be an expert on the internet?

Holy fuck you're insane.