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.

[FlatAssembler]

I've decided to add some context to the Dawkin's quote. This will be, I think, an excellent tool for trolling Christians:

Theologia numquam dixit aliquid, quod neque perspicuum fuisset (facile visu), neque falsum fuisset. Quando theologia dixit aliquid, quod alicui utile (quod aliquem adiuvat) est? Vera scientia curas morborum sciscit, theologia loquitur peccata morbos facere.

[Belacqua]

I've decided to add some context to the Dawkin's quote. This will be, I think, an excellent tool for trolling Christians:

Theologia numquam dixit aliquid, quod neque perspicuum fuisset (facile visu), neque falsum fuisset. Quando theologia dixit aliquid, quod alicui utile (quod aliquem adiuvat) est? Vera scientia curas morborum sciscit, theologia loquitur peccata morbos facere.

Wouldn't you have to establish that it was true before you used it to argue with? 

Do you have an argument, or examples, or something, to demonstrate that everything in theology is either obvious or false? 

I mean, what you say may be true, but we don't just want to take someone's word for it.

It's true that theology hasn't cured any diseases. But neither have a lot of subjects that are still worth talking about. History, for example.

[FlatAssembler]

I've decided to add some context to the Dawkin's quote. This will be, I think, an excellent tool for trolling Christians:

Wouldn't you have to establish that it was true before you used it to argue with? 

Do you have an argument, or examples, or something, to demonstrate that everything in theology is either obvious or false? 

I mean, what you say may be true, but we don't just want to take someone's word for it.

It's true that theology hasn't cured any diseases. But neither have a lot of subjects that are still worth talking about. History, for example.

History is not talking that pestilences are a consequence of sin and that they should not be fought against using science, theology was talking and still talks those things.

[Belacqua]

History is not talking that pestilences are a consequence of sin and that they should not be fought against using science, theology was talking and still talks those things.

Yes, I know what history is. 

If you look at what I said, you'll see that I was naming a worthwhile field of study that doesn't cure diseases. 

So saying that a field which doesn't cure diseases is a waste of time would be wrong. 

So saying that theology is a waste of time purely because it doesn't cure diseases would be wrong. 

Now, back to the question: you said that the translation of Dawkins' statement would be "an excellent tool for trolling Christians."

But what if you asserted to a Christian that every statement in theology is either obvious or wrong, and that Christian said "prove it." It would make sense to have an answer prepared.

[Succubus]

I've decided to add some context to the Dawkin's quote. This will be, I think, an excellent tool for trolling Christians:

Theologia numquam dixit aliquid, quod neque perspicuum fuisset (facile visu), neque falsum fuisset. Quando theologia dixit aliquid, quod alicui utile (quod aliquem adiuvat) est? Vera scientia curas morborum sciscit, theologia loquitur peccata morbos facere.

You're doing things the hard way. How will you reach the ~1/1000 Christians who can read Latin?

[FlatAssembler]

So saying that theology is a waste of time purely because it doesn't cure diseases would be wrong.

Theology argued, in its time, against using science to fight diseases. Although that's not limited to theology, that's not true of any field worth studying.

How will you reach the ~1/1000 Christians who can read Latin?

I thought Orthodox Christians were quite likely to know some Latin. And the proportion of the Christians on the Internet who know some Latin is greater than the proportion of Christians in real life who know Latin. Less educated Christians are less likely to argue for their belief on-line.
Regardless, it's not aimed just at Christians who can read Latin, it's aimed at those who say you are not qualified to talk about theology if you can't read the famous theological works in their original language. And those Christians are way more numerous, don't you think?

[Belacqua]

Theology argued, in its time, against using science to fight diseases. Although that's not limited to theology, that's not true of any field worth studying.

I think it would be better to say that some theologians, in their times, argued that prayer could cure disease. 

Other theologians had nothing against the use of science to fight disease, and in fact advocated it. 

The Cappadocian Fathers, for example, made a point of saying that to know how the world works is to know how God works. They advocated investigation into nature and biology, recommending in particular the dissection of human cadavers to learn about anatomy. They had no trouble with the idea that people ought to learn as much as possible about the natural world and use that knowledge for the health and comfort of people. 

Many other theologians were the same, particularly after Aquinas reintroduced Aristotelian views of nature in the 13th century. 

https://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Clas...21&sr=1-10

I wonder where the idea comes from that the church was in general against science. Galileo's case is sometimes presented as typical, but in fact it is the exception, provoked in large part because Galileo went out of his way to be offensive. He had many supporters in the Vatican and would have been fine with the least bit of diplomacy.

https://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Rome-Rise...oks&sr=1-1

Here is a list of Catholic clergymen who made significant contributions to science, all of whom were in good standing with the church:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ca...scientists

[FlatAssembler]

I think it would be better to say that some theologians, in their times, argued that prayer could cure disease

Sure. And some theologians still do. Since theology is not a real science, there is little to no consensus in it.

I wonder where the idea comes from that the church was in general against science.

Because it generally was. From the times that long predate Christianity. Aeschylus wrote in "Prometheus Bound" that Prometheus is the source of all knowledge about medicine, and that anybody who claims to have discovered some cure by himself is lying.

[The Grand Nudger]

Delving even further into the promethian backstory- the titans charge was to give all creatures their abilities and attributes.

Having doled out the best traits, Prometheus gave fire and an upright stance to the clay golems he had created....which Athena had provided the animating spark for. Fire, which Zeus had forbidden to us.

It’s interesting to note that this isn’t what consigned him to eternal torment. He’d tricked Zeus by wrapping a bag of bones in fine oil and skin, which Zeus chose over a fine carcass of meat. This meant that bones would always be his tribute. This is what enraged Zeus. The combination of having provided forbidden knowledge or attributes......and interfering in the worship of Zeus, by men, as Zeus would have had it.

This is wildly informative on two counts. One is that it shows a difference in how those people could see their relationship with the divine. As adversarial. Second, that the notion of attributes and knowledge being forbidden to men has been the domain of all western theism since classical antiquity.