An Essay about Atheism in Latin

[Deesse23]

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.

Of course latin is more easy than japanese (for a european, speaking a language related to latin). Japanese is fundamentally different. Starting with the use of syllables instead of letters.

From the perspective of someone who (once much better) can speak read Latin....more or less:
If anything i would be against using Latin because of issues with keeping exact meaning and getting your point across.

While many european languages are based more or less on Latin*, the structure of the language differs quite a bit from current languages. Placing of subject, verb, object. Just look at the (in)famous "ablativ" case. Its a nightmare. There are other constructs like Gerundivum ("cetero censeo carthaginem delendam esse"). Also a lot of vocabulary is related to the culture back then when it was used and can not properly be used if you are targeting for precision. A lot of vocabulary has literally a dozen (quite fundamentally different) meanings, so you always have to look for context to get the correct meaning. You (i) often have to go actoss a sentence multiple times.

Thats why i admire your ability not only to read but to actually write in Latin.

Unlike languages like english (i am german native speaker) which you get used to quickly and sometimes you catch yourself thinking in, latin always struck me more like math, like solving an equation. It never came natually to me (although at some point i was quite fluent in translating), i always had to ....work getting the (correct) translation. It always was work in and of itself, additionally to the content you are talking about.

Cicero (or even more poets like Catullus) is so hard, because he is using elaborate language constructs in a language foreign to youand you have to keep following his exact thoughts about state and politics. The same applies (imho) to writing about philosophy (theism, deism, atheism), which is a difficult topic in an of itself as well.


* although i never even took a single lesson in Italian, French, Spanish or Portugese, i am able to read signs and get the topic of whats written in a given text...mostly.

---

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.

I think he can be taken seriously.

I think he has compelling arguments on why he thinks the claims of the existence of gods have not met their burden of proof. Once you have reached the conclusion "i dont believe the gods i have been presented with do exist", you dont need to be an *expert* in theology.

From that vantage point, trying to be an expert in theology is like trying to be an expert in astrology. Its pointless. I would bet, for that reason Dawkins wouldnt even be offended by your statement.