Re: how to say "god does not exist" in arabic?

From: Holden (nothx_at_ihatespam.com)
Date: 08/17/04 

Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:17:21 -0500

Harlan Messinger wrote:
> "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:22d4i0tbei0h97nc553cp63qigmnfrle0o@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:40:51 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
>> <h.messinger@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "W. Syme" <Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>> news:ph04i05c12nuapoei3af2trihhaatervpp@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:57:20 -0400, Harlan Messinger
>>>> <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> W. Syme <Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
>>>>>> <h.messinger@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you also think that sleep indoctrination works, just because
>>>>>>> Aldous Huxley conceived that it would in "Brave New World"? Or
>>>>>>> that the Martian atmosphere can be made easy to breath by
>>>>>>> planting thousands of tree seeds on it and watching them grow
>>>>>>> overnight with the first rain, just because Ray Bradbury
>>>>>>> imagined it that way in "The Martian Chronicles"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is your points that things that are in books are by definition
>>>>>> impossible?
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought it was obvious that I was mocking him for taking the
>>>>> appearance of a concept in a work of fiction as proof that things
>>>>> *do* work that way.
>>>>
>>>> So because cars feature in Harry Potter books, I take it you see
>>>> them as purely fictional as well?
>>>
>>> Again, I thought it was obvious that I was mocking him for taking
>>> the appearance of a concept in a work of fiction as proof that
>>> things *do* work that way.
>>
>> Which of course I wan't doing. But then you knew that anyway, troll.
>>
>> The appendix is not part of the fiction but the background.
>
> As I said in another post, that's a laugh riot. In case you didn't
> notice, the appendix is written from the perspective of 1984, and
> goes on about a political movement called English Socialism, or
> IngSoc. Are you under the impression that the appendix was actually
> written in 1984, or that there really was a political movement called
> IngSoc? Of course not. It was all part of the *work of fiction*.
>
> I wonder if you think the Three Laws of Robotics are real too (the
> background to I, Robot). Or that a monolith actually appeared in the
> past to a tribe of pre-humans (the background to 2001: A Space
> Odyssey).

"Orwellian Newspeak" is a contemporary term that has it's roots in the
excerpt of 1984 he posted. Do you know the difference between a common term
derived from a source and the source itself?

You really have missed the entire point; this sort of semantic nonsense
isn't productive. Orwellian newspeak is the term that has come into common
use to describe this behavior, and the fact that the term itself was
inspired by a piece of fiction that advanced a similar notion is no more to
the point than saying that the space shuttle U.S.S. Enterprise isn't a real
shuttle because it's name was derived from the spaceship on Star Trek.