I am going to be completely honest here. I feel like a complete dumbass on this forum sometimes. I never studied philosophy, or physics or theology, and I guess I have some trouble understanding some of the discussion on this forum sometimes. I consider myself to be somewhat intelligent, mainly in other arenas like mechanics and electronics, but I honestly think that being religious most of my life has stunted my intellectual growth when it comes to the above mentioned studies. Let's be honest here, how many religious parents want their kids studying something that will likely make them question the religion they are trying to ingrain into them? I have already noticed the people who seem to have the best arguments and the most insight on this forum are life long atheists. Maybe being an atheist makes one lean heavily toward the sciences at a young age? Maybe theism makes one lean away from the sciences? This was just a thought I had on my way home from work today.
So what do you all think?
Quote from: Xjeepguy on October 24, 2011, 01:13:51 PM
I am going to be completely honest here. I feel like a complete dumbass on this forum sometimes. I never studied philosophy, or physics or theology, and I guess I have some trouble understanding some of the discussion on this forum sometimes. I consider myself to be somewhat intelligent, mainly in other arenas like mechanics and electronics, but I honestly think that being religious most of my life has stunted my intellectual growth when it comes to the above mentioned studies. Let's be honest here, how many religious parents want their kids studying something that will likely make them question the religion they are trying to ingrain into them? I have already noticed the people who seem to have the best arguments and the most insight on this forum are life long atheists. Maybe being an atheist makes one lean heavily toward the sciences at a young age? Maybe theism makes one lean away from the sciences? This was just a thought I had on my way home from work today.
So what do you all think?
There is something in what you say. My opinion anyway.
Quote from: Xjeepguy on October 24, 2011, 01:13:51 PM
I am going to be completely honest here. I feel like a complete dumbass on this forum sometimes. I never studied philosophy, or physics or theology, and I guess I have some trouble understanding some of the discussion on this forum sometimes. I consider myself to be somewhat intelligent, mainly in other arenas like mechanics and electronics, but I honestly think that being religious most of my life has stunted my intellectual growth when it comes to the above mentioned studies. Let's be honest here, how many religious parents want their kids studying something that will likely make them question the religion they are trying to ingrain into them? I have already noticed the people who seem to have the best arguments and the most insight on this forum are life long atheists. Maybe being an atheist makes one lean heavily toward the sciences at a young age? Maybe theism makes one lean away from the sciences? This was just a thought I had on my way home from work today.
So what do you all think?
I think that might be true to the extent of physical brain make up.
If you consider the brain as being similar to any other muscle in the body, you can imagine that its gets stronger with use and being overstretched. Neuro-connections in the brain are made (and atrophied) every day. If you are not using the brain-muscle in studying or comprehending sciences, then these functions may not be as developed as in the brain of the lifelong student. Our brains develop by creating these neuro connections.
So in the physical sense the theist brain, perhaps having not been so used to examining science and atheist philosophy, is less skilled because the required neuro connections are less numerous.
But just like a muscle, you can strengthen (make more of) your neuro connections with exercise.
Quote from: Xjeepguy on October 24, 2011, 01:13:51 PM
I am going to be completely honest here. I feel like a complete dumbass on this forum sometimes. I never studied philosophy, or physics or theology, and I guess I have some trouble understanding some of the discussion on this forum sometimes. I consider myself to be somewhat intelligent, mainly in other arenas like mechanics and electronics, but I honestly think that being religious most of my life has stunted my intellectual growth when it comes to the above mentioned studies. Let's be honest here, how many religious parents want their kids studying something that will likely make them question the religion they are trying to ingrain into them? I have already noticed the people who seem to have the best arguments and the most insight on this forum are life long atheists. Maybe being an atheist makes one lean heavily toward the sciences at a young age? Maybe theism makes one lean away from the sciences? This was just a thought I had on my way home from work today.
So what do you all think?
Don't worry, you're not the only one. Gawen, TFL and many others leave my head in a whirl!
My thoughts on reading your post was that children brought up in families where the parents encourage the widest possible education of the highest possible quality are likely to be advantaged over those with narrow poor-quality education. Parents who activly indoctrinate their children in their brand of institutionalised superstition will undobtedly build up intellectual barriers and provide an impoverished intellectual environment for their children.
What is the use of science, except at the pragmatic level, if one knows all the answers anyway?
Quote from: Xjeepguy on October 24, 2011, 01:13:51 PM
I am going to be completely honest here. I feel like a complete dumbass on this forum sometimes. I never studied philosophy, or physics or theology, and I guess I have some trouble understanding some of the discussion on this forum sometimes. I consider myself to be somewhat intelligent, mainly in other arenas like mechanics and electronics, but I honestly think that being religious most of my life has stunted my intellectual growth when it comes to the above mentioned studies. Let's be honest here, how many religious parents want their kids studying something that will likely make them question the religion they are trying to ingrain into them? I have already noticed the people who seem to have the best arguments and the most insight on this forum are life long atheists. Maybe being an atheist makes one lean heavily toward the sciences at a young age? Maybe theism makes one lean away from the sciences? This was just a thought I had on my way home from work today.
So what do you all think?
Or maybe the same propensity for sciences is the original reason for the atheism. I.e. a brain with a knack for sciences is more likely to conclude a world view of a universe without god.
I've come across some psychologist who said that atheism is definitely more cognitively demanding than accepting a theistic belief. You could say that theism is the path of least resistance (that's why I don't wholly accept that atheism is the default position).
People need to train their critical thinking also, and religious people who aren't allowed to think critically will have a rather stunted capacity.
What also comes to mind is just how often and how easily religious people think in simplistic black-and-white, create dichotomies where they don't exist and simplify a complex thing to absurdity.
I think the relationship between intelligence and religiosity is fascinating :P Though there does seem to be a higher correlation of higher IQ with atheism, I don't know just how much of a causal factor it is. Also, since people are multifaceted, people with high IQs can be extremely religious. Why that is is a mystery to me. ???
I don't think so...I know many ex-theists who are very good at sounding like smarty pants concerning philosophy and the sciences.
Quote from: Whitney on October 24, 2011, 03:48:50 PM
I don't think so...I know many ex-theists who are very good at sounding like smarty pants concerning philosophy and the sciences.
And also many theists use science and phylosophy in the same way a drunk uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination ;)
QuoteOr maybe the same propensity for sciences is the original reason for the atheism. I.e. a brain with a knack for sciences is more likely to conclude a world view of a universe without god.
This is a good point as well. Perhaps intelligence begets atheism. If nothing else, I feel better for eventually finding the correct path. lol
One thing that is interesting, I find myself reading, or desiring to read a lot more since I rejected theism, as well as a genuine thirst for knowledge that I have not felt since I was in grade school. Sometimes I think it is because before I would avoid activities that would make me question faith. Kind of like a self preservation for the faithful. Maybe I am over analyzing this?
Quote from: Tank on October 24, 2011, 04:31:50 PM
Quote from: Whitney on October 24, 2011, 03:48:50 PM
I don't think so...I know many ex-theists who are very good at sounding like smarty pants concerning philosophy and the sciences.
And also many theists use science and phylosophy in the same way a drunk uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination ;)
That's great. I'm taking that...
I find it dumbfounding when I come across a person who I find to be truly intelligent that believes in God. It just makes me think that people can put up monster scores on standardized tests, get a PhD from a top school, and still not 'get it'.
I like what ScissorLegs said. If you don't use certain parts of your brain, they definitely go into a state of atrophy. But if you start using it again (or for the first time) you find that those abilities do come back. I would be surprised if someone who picked up science or philosophy later in life would be able to advance their knowledge as quickly as someone who'd been studying those things for most of their life.
I think that since I've become an atheist I have had to train myself out of some of the logical fallacies that go along with religion. For so long, I thought faith was a virtue. Now, I have to remind myself that it isn't. It is blindness. It is the practice of talking yourself into something that really doesn't make any sense, no matter how much you want it to be true. I agree about the reading, though. I am reading so much about religion and science and atheism. I recommend The Portable Atheist, which is a collection of essential readings written by skeptics throughout history. It covers religion, science, philosophy, morality, etc. I'm about halfway through.
In regards to the idea that atheists are more intelligent...well, I'd like to think so. However, I've come across many very intelligent people who have faith in the ridiculous. I wrote this story in another thread somewhere, but it is relevant here. My husband is an ER doc. One of the other residents in his class was a Mormon. According to most of the other doctors, he was also one of the sharpest guys in the hospital. However, I had a conversation with him in which he seriously told me how Mormons have lots of kids because they believe it is their duty to give the most souls the best chance at salvation by bringing them into a Mormon home. I found that just so nutso! It's really very perplexing!
Quote from: Heisenberg on October 25, 2011, 03:10:34 AM
I would be surprised if someone who picked up science or philosophy later in life would be able to advance their knowledge as quickly as someone who'd been studying those things for most of their life.
Agreed.
I do think that the impact of peer (or family) pressure cannot be underestimated here though. Regardless of intelligence, or a consideration for logic, a person is going to be swayed predominantly by what is experienced around him/her. A learned acceptance of the requirement for 'faith' is a powerful weapon against a less-than-conscientiously logical mind. And a conscientiously logical mind is not developed within religious communities.
Quote from: Heisenberg on October 25, 2011, 03:10:34 AM
I find it dumbfounding when I come across a person who I find to be truly intelligent that believes in God. It just makes me think that people can put up monster scores on standardized tests, get a PhD from a top school, and still not 'get it'.
This quote from 'Hard-boiled Wonderland and the End of the World' always comes to mind when I encounter this. "I always say - a prejudice on my part, I'm sure - you can tell a lot about a person's character from his choice of sofa. Sofas constitute a realm inviolate unto themselves. This, however, is something that only those who have grown up sitting on good sofas will appreciate. It's like growing up reading good books or listening to good music. One good sofa breeds another good sofa; one bad sofa breeds another bad sofa. That's how it goes."
I was a theist for the first 20 years of my life, or so. I hope that doesn't make me handicapped :(
Quote from: Heisenberg on October 25, 2011, 03:10:34 AM
I would be surprised if someone who picked up science or philosophy later in life would be able to advance their knowledge as quickly as someone who'd been studying those things for most of their life.
Agreed, but this goes for pretty much anything, not just science and philosophy. It's just easier to learn stuff when you're younger.
DeterminedJuliet wrote:
QuoteI was a theist for the first 20 years of my life, or so. I hope that doesn't make me handicapped.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't, just as I'm pretty sure Xjeepguy isn't a "dumbass" - being anything more than "pretty sure" would require faith. ;) I know 5/8 of fuck all about quantum theory and even less about philosophy. If anyone thinks that makes me stupid, well, come outside and say that!
Quote from: Xjeepguy on October 24, 2011, 01:13:51 PM
I am going to be completely honest here. I feel like a complete dumbass on this forum sometimes. I never studied philosophy, or physics or theology, and I guess I have some trouble understanding some of the discussion on this forum sometimes. I consider myself to be somewhat intelligent, mainly in other arenas like mechanics and electronics, but I honestly think that being religious most of my life has stunted my intellectual growth when it comes to the above mentioned studies. Let's be honest here, how many religious parents want their kids studying something that will likely make them question the religion they are trying to ingrain into them? I have already noticed the people who seem to have the best arguments and the most insight on this forum are life long atheists. Maybe being an atheist makes one lean heavily toward the sciences at a young age? Maybe theism makes one lean away from the sciences? This was just a thought I had on my way home from work today.
So what do you all think?
Well I was raised an Atheist and that, I think, had certain advantages. Like my parents never told me there was a Santa Clause, or Easter Bunny. We celebrated Christmas, Easter, Thanksgivings, Birthdays and Halloween without the nonsense just for fun. Also I wasn't given heaven (or hell) as an explanation for death. The truth was best. Living in the Bible belt I was able to witness first hand the hypocrisy of religious people, the ridiculousness of religious superstition. I was also raised, even very young, that there were no words that are obscene. Intellectuals and the religious will tell you that certain words shouldn't be used in polite society and yet can't tell you anything about those words and why they think they are obscene.
That last thing has probably caused me more problems than advantage.
However, as an atheist, that is someone who didn't believe in God, I knew nothing about God until I educated myself in my mid to late twenties. I think that the idea that theists are less educated, logical, intelligent, smart is sort of a false sense of superiority the atheists like to think of themselves as.
Quote from: EarthlingI think that the idea that theists are less educated, logical, intelligent, smart is sort of a false sense of superiority the atheists like to think of themselves as.
So, do you think that theism is logical? If not, why do you think so many intelligent, educated people are theists? As a fairly recent atheist (former Christian), I know what it is like to convince yourself of the false logic of certain beliefs. However, I continue to be boggled that educated people can grow to be so old and still so religious. I "deconverted" when I was about 30, and I'm kind of embarrassed by how long it took me.
Quote from: Good and Godless on October 29, 2011, 03:23:33 AM
Quote from: EarthlingI think that the idea that theists are less educated, logical, intelligent, smart is sort of a false sense of superiority the atheists like to think of themselves as.
So, do you think that theism is logical? If not, why do you think so many intelligent, educated people are theists? As a fairly recent atheist (former Christian), I know what it is like to convince yourself of the false logic of certain beliefs. However, I continue to be boggled that educated people can grow to be so old and still so religious. I "deconverted" when I was about 30, and I'm kind of embarrassed by how long it took me.
Well, I rejected it myself when I was about 5 or 6. I later studied religion as a sort of academic fascination with the human ability to take something potentially good and completely muck it up. Just like they do with love, money, government, law, justice, politics, science, music, art, sports, fashion, television, radio, consumerism, etc. etc.
I think most religious people are in it for the cultural, traditional and social aspects. When looked at from that point of view the knowledge becomes ritualized until completely obscured just as sure as politics corrupts. I know people who are Jehovah's Witnesses, who have been tortured and beaten as missionaries and have proclaimed the "truth" for 40 plus years and who woke up one day and said: "What the hell are we doing?" and walked away from it. But I also know of many respected scientist who are theistic in that they have expressed belief in Creation.
- Alberts, Louw (physicist)
- Artist, Russell Charles (biologist)
- Barton, D.H.R. (professor of chemistry)
- Baumgardner, John R. (geophysicist)
- Behe, Michael J. (biochemist)
- Block, David (astronomer)
- Collins, Francis (molecular biologist)
- Compton, Arthur H. (Nobel prize winner)
- Davies, Paul (physicist)
- Dembski, William A. (mathematician)
- Dirac, P. (mathematician)
- Dyson, Freeman (physicist)
- Faraday, Michael (physicist)
- Flew, Antony (philosopher)
- František, Vyskočil (neurophysiology professor)
- Galileo Galilei (mathematician, physicist)
- Giertych, Maciej (geneticist)
- Gish, Duane T. (biochemist)
- Hernández-Lemus, Enrique (professor)
- Hooker, Worthington, M.D.
- Hoyle, Fred (astrophysicist)
- Hutton, Dr. James H. (past president of medical societies)
- Jeans, Sir James (mathematician, physicist, astronomer)
- Kelvin, Lord (physicist)
- Klopsteg, Dr. Paul E. (past president of science association)
- Knobloch, Irving (natural scientist)
- Kreider, Marlin (physiologist)
- Krogdahl, Wasley (astronomer, physicist)
- Lennox, John (professor of mathematics)
- Lipson, H. S. (Fellow of the Royal Society)
- Newton, Sir Isaac (physicist)
- O'Keefe, Dr. John A.
- Pasteur, Louis (biochemist)
- Phillips, William D. (physicist)
- Polkinghorne, John (physicist)
- Rubbia, Carlo (physicist)
- Sandage, Allan (astronomer)
- Schroeder, Dr. Gerald (nuclear physicist)
- Tanaka, Kenneth (planetary geologist)
- von Braun, Wernher (physicist)
- Weinberg, Steven
- White, Robert (brain surgeon)
Quote from: EarthlingIntellectuals and the religious will tell you that certain words shouldn't be used in polite society and yet can't tell you anything about those words and why they think they are obscene.
Ever full of surprises, aren't we? I admit you have me totally stumped here. Can you provide some examples of words that "intellectuals" tell you shouldn't be used in polite society? Actual citations might be helpful or is asking for evidence some form of propaganda in your view? Just an aside: I don't think intellectuals accept the notion of "polite society" but I'm sure you know more about them than I do.
Quote from: Attila on October 29, 2011, 05:53:37 AM
Quote from: EarthlingIntellectuals and the religious will tell you that certain words shouldn't be used in polite society and yet can't tell you anything about those words and why they think they are obscene.
Ever full of surprises, aren't we? I admit you have me totally stumped here. Can you provide some examples of words that "intellectuals" tell you shouldn't be used in polite society? Actual citations might be helpful or is asking for evidence some form of propaganda in your view? Just an aside: I don't think intellectuals accept the notion of "polite society" but I'm sure you know more about them than I do.
Well, you see, I'm just this guy, you know? I kind of have to worm myself through this shit and hope that I stumble upon some crumb of wisdom from the likes of you. Are you familiar with the term fuck? I think you are, like the term fuck off? Yeaaah . . .
Psssttt!! Now I have it on authority that fuck isn't an anachronism For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge but it might be a reference to a planting of a seed.
Now as you may know. I'm a person of faith, unreasonable, an' not s' much given properly to the notion of book learnin' n' such
AND I MUST ADMIT there was a time in my dark past when the weed was plenty and the whiskey river took at least a good portion of my mind downstream, but boy howdy I sure would like for you to go on and on and on about etymology of fuck!
WHOOO Yeah!Consider me, for the moment in the words of Brian Warner, the god of fuck.
Twas him, Marilyn, who also said "It ain't the one true God but the God of the people I hate."
Enlighten, please, if you will, this old rock n roll history museum unlike the proverbial old kodger? For me?
But hear ye this as well! The first prophecy of Jesus Christ is commonly overlooked. It is Genesis 3:15. And remember this as well if you are able, that verse mentions the seed. And as Jesus himself said, the founding of the world was upon the blood of Able. Er, Abel. Luke 11:50-51. The Greek word he used was katabole, which literally means conceiving of seed in human conception. A "throwing down of seed," to be literal as the founding of the world. Hebrews 11:11 Paul uses a similar term. Ladies and gentlemen . . . The Throwing Down Of The Seed!
Thanks for all that, E-ling. Was that intended as an answer? I confess I understood very little of your post, stream of consciousness not being my thing. However I am impressed by your acute analysis of the word "fuck". So I guess there are no words that intellectuals don't utter in polite society -- another misunderstanding I guess. ;)
Quote from: Attila on October 29, 2011, 07:21:39 AM
Thanks for all that, E-ling. Was that intended as an answer? I am impressed by your acute analysis of the word "fuck". So I guess there are no words that intellectuals don't utter in polite society.
Cunt comes to mind. Wankel Rotary Engine. Nigger? Umm . . . by the way I thought fuck was one.
Wanker. No that wasn't one I was calling you by a term of endearment.
I get all dizzy if you so much as mention the word midget; and antique furniture. I can't get near a piece of antique furniture. I start to shake all over and drool ever so slightly. Rub shit in my hair and contemplate a Ron Paul REVOLUTION MOTHER FUCKERS!
Yeah!
Well its about time, don't you think?! Fractional Reserve Banking! The Federal Reserve! Department Of Homeland Security! The European Union and the New World Order. North American Union.
The name Rothschild. That's another one.
The Bilderbergs. I don't know how to spell that one.
Back to the American Constitution! This is a republic.
Those are the only ones I can think of right now.
Thank you for that E-ling. That explains things nicely. We don't seem to hang with the same bunch. I have zero experience with intellectuals cause I've never had contact with anyone fitting your descriptions. Talk about coming from two different worlds, maybe two different planets might be more apt. If I might try your patience again, you mentioned that I espouse[sic] my propaganda. Stupid me, I didn't think you could espouse propaganda but maybe that's more propaganda. :) Maybe I was doing "subconscious espousing" in the sense of George Harrison's subconscious plagiarism with his song ... wait for it ... My Sweet Lord, ;D meaning that I did it without meaning to. In any event could you give me an example of this espousing? At least then I'll know it when I'm doing it. Feel free to indulge in your stream of consciousness style. I'm sure James Joyce is turning over in his grave with envy. (What a cunt, eh?)
Quote from: Attila on October 29, 2011, 07:52:33 AM
Thank you for that E-ling. That explains things nicely. We don't seem to hang with the same bunch. I have zero experience with intellectuals cause I've never had contact with anyone fitting your descriptions. Talk about coming from two different worlds, maybe two different planets might be more apt. If I might try your patience again, you mentioned that I espouse[sic] my propaganda. Stupid me, I didn't think you could espouse propaganda but maybe that's more propaganda. :) Maybe I was doing "subconscious espousing" in the sense of George Harrison's subconscious plagiarism with his song ... wait for it ... My Sweet Lord, ;D meaning that I did it without meaning to. In any event could you give me an example of this espousing? At least then I'll know it when I'm doing it. Feel free to indulge in your stream of consciousness style. I'm sure James Joyce is turning over in his grave with envy. (What a cunt, eh?)
Ouch!
QuoteI think that the idea that theists are less educated, logical, intelligent, smart is sort of a false sense of superiority the atheists like to think of themselves as.
I think you have misunderstood my point. Not saying that I am any smarter than a theist (called myself a dumbass, remember?) My initial question was hinting at wether theists limit themselves to learning that did not threaten their ideals, therefore limit their overall understanding of certain sciences. I speak from experience here, I was directed away from evolutionary studies, as well as any readings that could sway ones faith, only to learn now that it stunted my intellectual growth.
Quote from: Xjeepguy on October 29, 2011, 12:04:33 PM
QuoteI think that the idea that theists are less educated, logical, intelligent, smart is sort of a false sense of superiority the atheists like to think of themselves as.
I think you have misunderstood my point. Not saying that I am any smarter than a theist (called myself a dumbass, remember?) My initial question was hinting at wether theists limit themselves to learning that did not threaten their ideals, therefore limit their overall understanding of certain sciences. I speak from experience here, I was directed away from evolutionary studies, as well as any readings that could sway ones faith, only to learn now that it stunted my intellectual growth.
I don't think you have any cause for worry. You seem as intelligent and interesting as anyone. Remember the fellow traveller of atheism/ignosticism is scepticism. If most people believe something, it's usually false. Don't trust anyone least of all me. Check your facts and check other people's facts. Take nothing on faith and you'll never need to take a back seat to anyone. Try to have fun too. :)
Just BTW
Quote from: Online Etymology Dictionary
fuck (v.)
until recently a difficult word to trace, in part because it was taboo to the editors of the original OED when the "F" volume was compiled, 1893-97. Written form only attested from early 16c. OED 2nd edition cites 1503, in the form fukkit; earliest appearance of current spelling is 1535 -- "Bischops ... may fuck thair fill and be vnmaryit" [Sir David Lyndesay, "Ane Satyre of the Thrie Estaits"], but presumably it is a much more ancient word than that, simply one that wasn't written in the kind of texts that have survived from O.E. and M.E. Buck cites proper name John le Fucker from 1278. The word apparently is hinted at in a scurrilous 15c. poem, titled "Flen flyys," written in bastard Latin and M.E. The relevant line reads:
Non sunt in celi
quia fuccant uuiuys of heli
"They [the monks] are not in heaven because they fuck the wives of [the town of] Ely." Fuccant is pseudo-Latin, and in the original it is written in cipher. The earliest examples of the word otherwise are from Scottish, which suggests a Scandinavian origin, perhaps from a word akin to Norwegian dialectal fukka "copulate," or Swedish dialectal focka "copulate, strike, push," and fock "penis." Another theory traces it to M.E. fyke, fike "move restlessly, fidget," which also meant "dally, flirt," and probably is from a general North Sea Germanic word; cf. M.Du. fokken, Ger. ficken "fuck," earlier "make quick movements to and fro, flick," still earlier "itch, scratch;" the vulgar sense attested from 16c. This would parallel in sense the usual M.E. slang term for "have sexual intercourse," swive, from O.E. swifan "to move lightly over, sweep" (see swivel). But OED remarks these "cannot be shown to be related" to the English word. Chronology and phonology rule out Shipley's attempt to derive it from M.E. firk "to press hard, beat."
Germanic words of similar form (f + vowel + consonant) and meaning 'copulate' are numerous. One of them is G. ficken. They often have additional senses, especially 'cheat,' but their basic meaning is 'move back and forth.' ... Most probably, fuck is a borrowing from Low German and has no cognates outside Germanic. [Liberman]
Quote from: OldGit on October 29, 2011, 02:33:15 PM
Just BTW
Quote from: Online Etymology Dictionary
fuck (v.)
until recently a difficult word to trace, in part because it was taboo to the editors of the original OED when the "F" volume was compiled, 1893-97. Written form only attested from early 16c. OED 2nd edition cites 1503, in the form fukkit; earliest appearance of current spelling is 1535 -- "Bischops ... may fuck thair fill and be vnmaryit" [Sir David Lyndesay, "Ane Satyre of the Thrie Estaits"], but presumably it is a much more ancient word than that, simply one that wasn't written in the kind of texts that have survived from O.E. and M.E. Buck cites proper name John le Fucker from 1278. The word apparently is hinted at in a scurrilous 15c. poem, titled "Flen flyys," written in bastard Latin and M.E. The relevant line reads:
Non sunt in celi
quia fuccant uuiuys of heli
"They [the monks] are not in heaven because they fuck the wives of [the town of] Ely." Fuccant is pseudo-Latin, and in the original it is written in cipher. The earliest examples of the word otherwise are from Scottish, which suggests a Scandinavian origin, perhaps from a word akin to Norwegian dialectal fukka "copulate," or Swedish dialectal focka "copulate, strike, push," and fock "penis." Another theory traces it to M.E. fyke, fike "move restlessly, fidget," which also meant "dally, flirt," and probably is from a general North Sea Germanic word; cf. M.Du. fokken, Ger. ficken "fuck," earlier "make quick movements to and fro, flick," still earlier "itch, scratch;" the vulgar sense attested from 16c. This would parallel in sense the usual M.E. slang term for "have sexual intercourse," swive, from O.E. swifan "to move lightly over, sweep" (see swivel). But OED remarks these "cannot be shown to be related" to the English word. Chronology and phonology rule out Shipley's attempt to derive it from M.E. firk "to press hard, beat."
Germanic words of similar form (f + vowel + consonant) and meaning 'copulate' are numerous. One of them is G. ficken. They often have additional senses, especially 'cheat,' but their basic meaning is 'move back and forth.' ... Most probably, fuck is a borrowing from Low German and has no cognates outside Germanic. [Liberman]
Excellent, OG. But is it too late? I hope you've kept a copy ready for reposting should the need arise.
Quote from: Attila on October 29, 2011, 07:52:33 AM
(What a cunt, eh?)
Is the English use of "cunt" the same as the American use of "asshole"? It seems to me they are, esp. when I'm listening to Jim Jefferies, but I'm not really sure.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 30, 2011, 01:38:05 AM
Quote from: Attila on October 29, 2011, 07:52:33 AM
(What a cunt, eh?)
Is the English use of "cunt" the same as the American use of "asshole"? It seems to me they are, esp. when I'm listening to Jim Jefferies, but I'm not really sure.
Jim Jefferies is Australian. :D
I don't know because I don't know how "bad" asshole is in American English. All I can say is that "cunt" is at the extreme end - offhand I can't think of a "worse" word.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 30, 2011, 01:38:05 AM
Quote from: Attila on October 29, 2011, 07:52:33 AM
(What a cunt, eh?)
Is the English use of "cunt" the same as the American use of "asshole"? It seems to me they are, esp. when I'm listening to Jim Jefferies, but I'm not really sure.
No. A 'cunt' is a slang reference to the vagina. In the UK after the watershead at 9pm swearing is not restricted but such is the dislike for the 'C word' that it is very very rare to hear it. While the 'F bomb' is dropped so regularly it has almost completly lost its ability to shock.
Quote from: Ildiko on October 30, 2011, 07:39:57 AM
Jim Jefferies is Australian. :D
I know, but the Aussie seem fairly English-ish, and I've noticed in some English movies "cunt" being used where an American would say "asshole".
QuoteI don't know because I don't know how "bad" asshole is in American English. All I can say is that "cunt" is at the extreme end - offhand I can't think of a "worse" word.
Generally speaking (and obviously milage may vary), "asshole" is not as bad as "motherfucker" but worse than "dickwad". "Cunt" tho is so extreme that I rarely hear it used, even by stand-up comics, in America and when it is used it's only in reference to women, to some woman who's gone well beyond mere "bitch".
Quote from: Tank on October 30, 2011, 09:55:10 AM
No. A 'cunt' is a slang reference to the vagina. In the UK after the watershead at 9pm swearing is not restricted but such is the dislike for the 'C word' that it is very very rare to hear it. While the 'F bomb' is dropped so regularly it has almost completly lost its ability to shock.
That's the dictionary meaning in America too (assuming "cunt" is in the dictionary), but I'd noticed in Jefferies stand-up and some English movies (tho
Shaun of the Dead is the only one I can think of off-hand) that "cunt" is used in the same way and in the same circumstances that an American would use "asshole".
I think we need to remember the context in which Jeffries was using "cunt". Every other sentence out of his mouth was "christians are a bunch of fucking retards" or words to the effect. He very astutely noticed that when he made remarks about gays or muslims the audience laughed uproariously but when he talking about christians in a similar vein, half the audience fell silent. I think "cunt" simply got lost in the shuffle in that special context. Even in Australia I don't think christian-bashing is that common.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 30, 2011, 07:10:20 PM
Quote from: Ildiko on October 30, 2011, 07:39:57 AM
Jim Jefferies is Australian. :D
I know, but the Aussie seem fairly English-ish....
Never say that to an Aussie! Jefferies was also playing the potty-mouthed Aussie there. I don't think he'd talk like that in front of his granny.
Quote
Generally speaking (and obviously milage may vary), "asshole" is not as bad as "motherfucker" but worse than "dickwad". "Cunt" tho is so extreme that I rarely hear it used, even by stand-up comics, in America and when it is used it's only in reference to women, to some woman who's gone well beyond mere "bitch".
Dickwad is new to me. It just sounds silly and made up, rather than offensive. I'll try it out on our local Mormon missionaries and see how they react. :D
Tank will correct me if I'm wrong, but generally speaking we use it of men, rather than women. I don't think I'd be very offended at being called a cunt - it would just seem inappropriate. But it is at the absolute limit on the calling-a-bloke-something-offensive scale. You can say "He's a real cunt" but I'd think twice about calling someone a cunt to his face, unless he's a friend.
Best avoided in the UK, really, unless you are confident with it.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 30, 2011, 07:10:20 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 30, 2011, 09:55:10 AM
No. A 'cunt' is a slang reference to the vagina. In the UK after the watershead at 9pm swearing is not restricted but such is the dislike for the 'C word' that it is very very rare to hear it. While the 'F bomb' is dropped so regularly it has almost completly lost its ability to shock.
That's the dictionary meaning in America too (assuming "cunt" is in the dictionary), but I'd noticed in Jefferies stand-up and some English movies (tho Shaun of the Dead is the only one I can think of off-hand) that "cunt" is used in the same way and in the same circumstances that an American would use "asshole".
It's a question of the degree of the insult wants to deliver, cunt being much worse that arsehole.
Quote from: Ildiko on October 30, 2011, 07:39:57 AM
I don't know because I don't know how "bad" asshole is in American English. All I can say is that "cunt" is at the extreme end - offhand I can't think of a "worse" word.
Both asshole and cunt are at the extreme end - anatomically speaking. Since all of us have the former (barring any congenital defect), and only half of us have the latter (barring any genital defect), the latter is more gender specific, and therefore more offensive, at least to that gender.
Quote from: OldGit on October 29, 2011, 02:33:15 PM
Just BTW
Quote from: Online Etymology Dictionary
fuck (v.)
until recently a difficult word to trace, in part because it was taboo to the editors of the original OED when the "F" volume was compiled, 1893-97. Written form only attested from early 16c. OED 2nd edition cites 1503, in the form fukkit; earliest appearance of current spelling is 1535 -- "Bischops ... may fuck thair fill and be vnmaryit" [Sir David Lyndesay, "Ane Satyre of the Thrie Estaits"], but presumably it is a much more ancient word than that, simply one that wasn't written in the kind of texts that have survived from O.E. and M.E. Buck cites proper name John le Fucker from 1278. The word apparently is hinted at in a scurrilous 15c. poem, titled "Flen flyys," written in bastard Latin and M.E. The relevant line reads:
Non sunt in celi
quia fuccant uuiuys of heli
"They [the monks] are not in heaven because they fuck the wives of [the town of] Ely." Fuccant is pseudo-Latin, and in the original it is written in cipher. The earliest examples of the word otherwise are from Scottish, which suggests a Scandinavian origin, perhaps from a word akin to Norwegian dialectal fukka "copulate," or Swedish dialectal focka "copulate, strike, push," and fock "penis." Another theory traces it to M.E. fyke, fike "move restlessly, fidget," which also meant "dally, flirt," and probably is from a general North Sea Germanic word; cf. M.Du. fokken, Ger. ficken "fuck," earlier "make quick movements to and fro, flick," still earlier "itch, scratch;" the vulgar sense attested from 16c. This would parallel in sense the usual M.E. slang term for "have sexual intercourse," swive, from O.E. swifan "to move lightly over, sweep" (see swivel). But OED remarks these "cannot be shown to be related" to the English word. Chronology and phonology rule out Shipley's attempt to derive it from M.E. firk "to press hard, beat."
Germanic words of similar form (f + vowel + consonant) and meaning 'copulate' are numerous. One of them is G. ficken. They often have additional senses, especially 'cheat,' but their basic meaning is 'move back and forth.' ... Most probably, fuck is a borrowing from Low German and has no cognates outside Germanic. [Liberman]
I always heard it came from an abbreviation for Forced Unlawful Carnal Knowledge, but that was apparently an urban legend.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 05:45:25 PM
Quote from: Ildiko on October 30, 2011, 07:39:57 AM
I don't know because I don't know how "bad" asshole is in American English. All I can say is that "cunt" is at the extreme end - offhand I can't think of a "worse" word.
Both asshole and cunt are at the extreme end - anatomically speaking. Since all of us have the former (barring any congenital defect), and only half of us have the latter (barring any genital defect), the latter is more gender specific, and therefore more offensive, at least to that gender.
Bollocks to that.
QuoteI always heard it came from an abbreviation for Forced Unlawful Carnal Knowledge, but that was apparently an urban legend.
ROFLMCO
Quote from: Xjeepguy on October 24, 2011, 01:13:51 PM
I am going to be completely honest here. I feel like a complete dumbass on this forum sometimes. I never studied philosophy, or physics or theology, and I guess I have some trouble understanding some of the discussion on this forum sometimes. I consider myself to be somewhat intelligent, mainly in other arenas like mechanics and electronics, but I honestly think that being religious most of my life has stunted my intellectual growth when it comes to the above mentioned studies. Let's be honest here, how many religious parents want their kids studying something that will likely make them question the religion they are trying to ingrain into them? I have already noticed the people who seem to have the best arguments and the most insight on this forum are life long atheists. Maybe being an atheist makes one lean heavily toward the sciences at a young age? Maybe theism makes one lean away from the sciences? This was just a thought I had on my way home from work today.
So what do you all think?
I was raised as an atheist and half of what I read on this forum is way over my head. I've always had an interest in physics but I'm no expert and though I read every thread on the subject posted on this forum, I honestly don't feel as if I have anything valid to contribute to the conversation. That's why you'll rarely see a response from me on the subject. I guess in a way I'm more of a lurker.
Quote from: Ildiko on October 31, 2011, 06:43:00 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 05:45:25 PM
Quote from: Ildiko on October 30, 2011, 07:39:57 AM
I don't know because I don't know how "bad" asshole is in American English. All I can say is that "cunt" is at the extreme end - offhand I can't think of a "worse" word.
Both asshole and cunt are at the extreme end - anatomically speaking. Since all of us have the former (barring any congenital defect), and only half of us have the latter (barring any genital defect), the latter is more gender specific, and therefore more offensive, at least to that gender.
Bollocks to that.
I can't believe you don't agree with everything I said. Let's take it one sentence at a time: 1) "Both asshole and cunt are at the extreme end - anatomically speaking." Of course this is true. 2) "Since all of us have the former (barring any congenital defect), and only half of us have the latter (barring any genital defect)" - I was quite proud of this sentence - I thought it was witty. 3) "the latter is more gender specific, and therefore more offensive, at least to that gender." - of course cunt is more offensive than asshole - to women. So I'm right.
Or maybe, as a Yank, I don't fully understand the usage of "bollocks." Perhaps you could enlighten me. ;D
Quote from: Ildiko on October 30, 2011, 08:10:24 PM
Dickwad is new to me. It just sounds silly and made up, rather than offensive. I'll try it out on our local Mormon missionaries and see how they react. :D
Be sure to have a video camera on hand and post the results.
Brits have the best insults!
Newfoundland has some pretty good ones, too. I like "yer as stunned as me arse", personally.
Sorry. Not trying to derail. We should start a creative insults thread!
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 01, 2011, 03:18:44 AM
Or maybe, as a Yank, I don't fully understand the usage of "bollocks." Perhaps you could enlighten me. ;D
Bollocks = testicles
Quote from: Tank on November 02, 2011, 08:38:54 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 01, 2011, 03:18:44 AM
Or maybe, as a Yank, I don't fully understand the usage of "bollocks." Perhaps you could enlighten me. ;D
Bollocks = testicles
That does this excellent word no justice at all.
Try this:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bollocks
It works especially well if prefixed by 'fucking' or quantified by 'utter', 'total' or 'complete'.
Is there an equivalently adaptable word in American?
Quote from: Scissorlegs on November 02, 2011, 09:16:31 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 02, 2011, 08:38:54 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 01, 2011, 03:18:44 AM
Or maybe, as a Yank, I don't fully understand the usage of "bollocks." Perhaps you could enlighten me. ;D
Bollocks = testicles
That does this excellent word no justice at all.
Try this:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bollocks
It works especially well if prefixed by 'fucking' or quantified by 'utter', 'total' or 'complete'.
Is there an equivalently adaptable word in American?
I think "bullshit" would be the American equivalent to "bullocks." :)
Quote from: Ildiko on October 30, 2011, 07:39:57 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 30, 2011, 01:38:05 AM
Quote from: Attila on October 29, 2011, 07:52:33 AM
(What a cunt, eh?)
Is the English use of "cunt" the same as the American use of "asshole"? It seems to me they are, esp. when I'm listening to Jim Jefferies, but I'm not really sure.
Jim Jefferies is Australian. :D
I don't know because I don't know how "bad" asshole is in American English. All I can say is that "cunt" is at the extreme end - offhand I can't think of a "worse" word.
Asshole isn't all that bad. Cunt is terrible. Something to use in place of asshole would be mother fucker or shitface. Cunt would be the most extreme way of offending someone, although I do admit, it is a commn nickname of mine. ;) But I suggest using bitch or twat instead.