h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Since you haven't gone into depth, I won't either, save to say, why not read Stephen Pinker's 'The Language Instinct,' a rather lovely little book which vehemently deplores the 'Whorf-Sapir hypothesis'."

The 'Whorf-Sapir hypothesis'?
Quote 1;
Whorf-Sapir Hypothesis (Faieta, 1983)

"Thoughts are determined by language.
Behavior is determined by language.
Language is strongly related to the culture in which that language is spoken and reflects that cultureís values.
Language serves as a filter for how one views the world. Language is an important element of the frame of reference."

Quote 2;http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/4110/whorf.html
"The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis consists of two distinct parts: linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity. Benjamin Whorf and Edward Sapir believed that thought and language are very closely related. Most linguists who study the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis cite examples demonstrating why they either support the conclusions of Whorf and Sapir, reject them, or are unsure of exactly what the hypothesis is about. It is commonly believed that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis possesses some truth, but the extent to which it is applicable to all situations is questioned. Linguists generally support a 'strong' or a 'weak' interpretation. Linguists who study the hypothesis tend to cite examples that support their beliefs but are unable or unwilling to refute the opposing arguments. Examples exist that strengthen the arguments of everyone who studies the hypothesis. Nobody has gained significant ground in proving or refuting the hypothesis because the definitions of Sapir and Whorf are very vague and incomplete, leaving room for a significant amount of interpretation. The debate about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis will likely continue to be a struggle between opposing viewpoints. This debate will probably never be settled because the hypothesis can be interpreted in many ways."



Alji

The only person I've heard use the word "wigger" is Eminem, complaining in the song "Whatever you say I am" that people accuse him of being a wigger - a conflation, I have always assumed, of either "white" or "wannabe" and "n****r". It's a good word to describe a particular kind of inner city male youth (usually white, but also possible Asian) who is so influenced by black culture and hiphop in particular that he adopts the speech and mannerisms of his heroes, despite the racial incongruity.


"It's a good word"

I took it from a previous post of yours that you had read what I posted regarding this nasty little word, its unpleasant meaning. OK if its a new new-ish concept for you to get your head around take more time to mull it over and "get your head around it".

Its not a good word to use for another reason. It was created based on the fallacy that there is a racial seperation of people on this planet when infact as Im sure you will know that idea is about as factual as the idea that the world is flat. That is to say it may appear that way to the naked eye and you may even find support for the idea in books like the bible but ultimately its rubbish.

<>



Well said, blicky.

az

Sorry, my fault - unclear use of the word "good".

I meant "good" in the sense that it neatly and concisely encapsulates a concept - a very specific concept which I've already described. In that sense "queen" is a 'good' word to describe an outrageously effeminate man. You might consider it offensive, but there's no chance you wouldn't know what I meant. It's "good" in the sense that it's difficult to misunderstand. Which makes it all the more contemptible to pretend that "that's not what I meant" if you use it.

Lets just agree its good to avoid it.

what has the bible got 2 do with racism?

Oh it bangs on about this race of people and that race.

It contains contemporary ideas of the time that there were seperate and distinct races of people. Outwardly this is appears to be true but like so many ideas contained in the bible science has shown the error in its idea of how races are seperate.

The OT mentions over and over how peoples are seperate and all are inferior in their customs to the Jews, understandably by the time the christian church produces the bible they have been superceeded by the christians. Jesus says god has got his special people marked out.

The race myth did not start with the bible but unfortunately it did no end there either. It has been adopted and transformed by many groups and leaders as an excuse to give others inferior treament.

Yes it has been used by some to say mortals cant see gods mark so ALL who come to christ are his chosen people, but some still only see skin colour.

Try Galations Ch3 v28.

try "love thy neighbour as thyself" Not all christians are racist! do u think christ was?

Hi miniemouse, sorry for any offensive caused it was not intended let me clarify myself.

I know what Christian values can be. The problem for some is that not all christians have the same values. I can call myself an opera singer, I dont know any Italian, I've neve read an opera score, and I cant sing for toffee. In just the same way you get people who call themselves "christian" who dont read the bible, dont agree with other christians about what Jesus meant and dont keep the ten commandments.

I dont think the way the New Testament is written up is racist, if anything it is deliberately inclusive. It is as I said the old testament that is the more reprehensible book in the way it views women, children, non- Jewish slaves other faiths and other "races" and nations.

I know this because I was a christian but that is a choice I changed because I dont believe in the bigG.

What do you think of people who call themselves christians but go round braking commandments and acting contrary to the teachings of Jesus?

hi minniemouse,

Well, my parents were RC and they broke pretty much every commandment in the book, and then some. And so I grew up believing that religion was a hypocritical method of control - and one that scared the heck out of me most of the time. Having to go to church to confess my sins - what the hell sort of SINS could a seven-year-old have committed? And worried late at night when I couldn't sleep that I was going to end up going to HELL because I was BAD. What sort of nonsense is that to teach a small child?

It turned out that I 'sinned' every single day because I could not 'honour my mother and my father'. Never mind that they did not deserve even the slightest bit of respect because both of them were abusive alcoholics, it was *me* who ended up feeling bad - *me* just a small kid - because I was told at Sunday school and at church that to not respect my parents was a SIN and that I was BAD for not doing so.

Well, just figure out how happily adjusted I turned out to be thanks to christianity and warped so-called Catholics (my parents) who were about as christian as . . . as . . . oh hell, can't think of a good enough sarcastic comparison, you fill in the blank. And I think that has always been my problem with religion. Because I learned very very early in my life that religion has nothing to do with god. And then I learned how to 'step outside' my reality and feel something that was both god and myself (out-of-body sort-a-kind-a stuff that happened during abusive moments). And then I knew that I was both here yet connected to something that was also me yet way much more (sorry - seven year old language). Anyhow, I call it Phred.

az

ok.sorry 2 hear u had an awful childhood. If it helps,i did 2! I was adopted by my sunday school teacher! I dont endorse religion, just faith. Belief makes all things possible. Pharisees are religious!

But you are now a beautiful person az. We will never meet and I'm sad.

hi minnie,

Oh, I wouldn't say it was 'awful', just difficult. People certainly go through much worse. I mostly wanted to explain why I have problems with religion and people who say they are religious and behave otherwise.

<>

Well, no, it doesn't 'help' as I could never feel good about somebody else's suffering, but I think I know what you meant.

You can't read the links, can you? I was going to ask what you thought of Alji's link on the Alpha Course.

az

Oetzi,

Well, 'never' is a really long time - you never know.

az

Well az...I would fall for you. You know the song. " I don't want to fall in love" with the beautiful guitar melody and the haunting chorus. I'm married. Full stop.

i am thinking of doing the alpha course. I will let u know my thoughts on it after.

Az,


All the other answers that it gives. That is, it is internally harmonious.


As I recall, I never said it did. Indeed, I thought I implied beforehand that the fact that the Bible gives reasonable answers to so many questions, while being evidence, was not proof.


If he didn't enforce justice, punishment for wrongdoing, who would? It seems what you're basically asking is, should God punish remorseless wrongdoers?
Verbal debate over this should be mostly unnecessary, since even now, evidence is being given as to what happens if God does not step in to put an end to wrongdoing. Things such as the World Wars, the Holocaust, and the September 11th attacks, to name a few, could have been prevented if God enforced his laws. He has shown, in the past, that it is not enough to only punish the very worst people. He has been showing for some time what happens if he punishes no-one. Eventually all will have to admit that it is best for mankind if those who refuse to follow God are removed. Eventually the case will be finished, and for the sake of humanity, those who will insist on disobeying God will have to go. Is that unloving? It is necessity. As Jehovah says, "I take delight, not in the death of the wicked one, but in that someone wicked turns back from his way and actually keeps living." He loves the wicked too, and wants them to live. But to do that they must change their ways, and if they are unwilling to do that, they will have to die. That is not God showing lack of love for them. If he lacked love, he would have killed them earlier, rather than giving them time to change and sending people to try to persuade them to change. If someone doesn't wait at all, then they have no patience. You can't say someone has no patience merely because they don't wait forever. Eventually this system of things has to end, to the mixed feelings of sadness and relief of all of us, including God. If you will insist on considering that eventually and reluctantly executing judgement makes a person unloving, there is little more I can say to you.

I hardly know where to begin...

"Verbal debate over this should be mostly unnecessary"

Indeed - debate is entirely impossible, since one side (no prizes for guessing which) takes it as a preconditional assumption that they are right. What room is there for debate in the face of such implacable certainty?

"what happens if God does not step in to put an end to wrongdoing. Things such as the World Wars, the Holocaust, and the September 11th attacks, to name a few, could have been prevented if God enforced his laws."

So what you're saying is that the horrifying deaths of millions in the WWI, the horrifying deaths of millions more in WWII, the horrifying deaths of millions in the Holocaust, and the horrifying deaths of just over two and a half thousand on September 11th, were all PREVENTABLE? And God did nothing? And we're supposed to RESPECT this creature?

"He has shown, in the past, that it is not enough to only punish the very worst people."

True. The innocent must be punished also, pour encourager les autres, presumably.

"Eventually all will have to admit that it is best for mankind if those who refuse to follow God are removed."

Personally I think it more likely that if and when our species moves out of its adolescence and finally grows up, that we will eventually all have to admit that it is best for mankind if those who still have an imaginary friend are "removed" - humanely of course.

"Is that unloving? It is necessity."

Says who? Are you saying the Holocaust was a necessity? Seriously?

"If you will insist on considering that eventually and reluctantly executing judgement makes a person unloving, there is little more I can say to you."

It is the nature of the judgement and the criteria of the test which make the interrogator unloving by any normal definition of the word "love" - once again I feel the need to qualify my use of simple English words in the face of obstinate Christian determination to twist them.

IF we for a moment allow the existence of this creature, this creator, then we must consider that his creation is set up from its very beginning as a con trick.

IF we for a moment allow that the Bible is accurate, then we must accept that all the evidence of the physical universe - all the assembled evidence upon which the sciences of astronomy, paleontology, biology, chemistry, physics and everything else - ALL of it is an elaborate lie designed to mislead the intelligent into believing there is no god.

We must accept that god went to ENORMOUS lengths to conceal his existence, indeed, to make the idea of his existence seem laughable and unnecessary superstition.

We are then further asked to accept that this trickster deity then punishes those who fall for his japes, but rewards the dullards who reject the evidence of the world around them in favour of an inconsistent, self-contradictory account of an evil creator who kills children for being rude to bald men. (2 Kings II v23-25)

We are then asked - by Insight - to interpret as "loving" a final visit by this conman god, in which all those who used the intellect he gave them to investigate the universe and attempt to understand it are punished heavily, and in which those who lack the wit to look up from the one book they trust are rewarded with eternity in heaven.

I honestly don't know whether that god exists or not. I just hope not because I'm one of those unfortunate enough to have fallen for his lies - the lies he planted in the rocks and stars to 'prove' he doesn't exist. A crueller hoax is impossible to imagine, and a fouler and more evil entity than one that could do such a thing is difficult to picture.

Insight,

Yeah, what he said!

Well, as Member beat me to answering your posting and more or less expressed my response then there isn't much for me to add. Well, maybe just a bit . . .

<>

Perhaps once there is nothing left for you to say then you might start listening? Any judgement that ends up with the destruction of innocent people *cannot* be considered loving.

<>

You know, Insight, that is just crazy. If He had loved them He wouldn't have killed them at all. He didn't kill them out of love, He killed them because they don't obey Him. This God of yours is psychotic. Jesus seems nice enough, but you will not convince me that the christian God is a kind and loving one. Especially not by just throwing bible quotes at me.

<>

So why didn't He step in to prevent all those things you mentioned? Do you know?

az