Gods

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Thu May 21, 2009 11:28 am

Interesting to note that the Buddha (563 BCE to 483 BCE) and Socrates (469 BCâ€“399 BC) lived and operated in roughly the same era. What did they have in common besides a century? Both fought against the hide-bound dogma of their own people: the Hindu religion in the case of Buddha and the Greek religion in Socrates' case.

Yet they never met. Or did they?

Socrates taught Plato, Plato taught Aristotle, and Aristotle taught Alexander the Great. And Alexander invaded India. Did he meet any Buddhists while he was there, and what was his reaction?

Alexander brought along some philosophers on his wars of conquest, among them Pyrrho and Anaxarchus.

They met some people whom they called the Gymnosophists ("naked philosophers", probably sadhus):
"And among the Indians there is the class of the gymnosophists, who, in addition to natural philosophy, take great pains in the study of moral science likewise, and thus make their whole existence a sort of lesson in virtue."

In fact, it's thought that Pyrrho of Ellis founded his philosophical school, the Skeptics, on what he heard there. Basically, his philosophy was similar to that which we hear from the Buddha here:
â€œDo not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.â€

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:33 pm

Nothing?

Or so you wish to believe but you do make a point of parallel thought between philosophy and Buddhism. Both observations of humans and the interactions of natural states.

One group calls it a science and the other a religion because of its connection to spiritualism. Alexander the Great was a more then a military genius. He was a philosopher. He understood what creates stability in culture and state. He appreciated the diversities of the people he conquered to the point that he celebrated them even as he established greek institutions of state and education. In his place long after the Greek Kings, those institutions stood and expanded in the same way. Alexander could have practised Theological eugenics but he respected his gods and those of others as long as they show mutual respect of the Gods.

It was a lesson learnt well from the Persians. Why recreate what is already there.

Someone should have told Bush and Cheney before they invaded Iraq.

There is much to learn from a people that has existed as a group for 6 millenniums. The polytheism belief were shared by them.

So Spamalot!

AIIZ

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:19 am

Can you think of a Greek philosopher who espoused the belief in more than one god? In my readings, most of them were considering the idea of a single god.

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:09 am

it is very hard to rationalized on why and how could there only be one since nothing in nature exists as just one unless it is something that is going extinct.

Name one thing that exists as only one?

Only through FAITH can one think so and FAITH is not a science nor a rationalization.

AIIZ

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:53 am

Apollonaris Zeus wrote:it is very hard to rationalized on why and how could there only be one since nothing in nature exists as just one unless it is something that is going extinct.

Name one thing that exists as only one?

Only through FAITH can one think so and FAITH is not a science nor a rationalization.

AIIZ

you assume "God" is part of nature.............if "God" is the creator, then, could easily be "the one".

sky, exists as only one.

it also depends on your POV.
if your a physicist, it'd be easy to say "everything is the same, since, on the sub atomic level, it is..........

And, faith may be the only "truth", since, it requires no proof............

especially in sub atomic physics (I'm admittedly quite the neophyte there), much still relies on supposition, and, or "faith"..........seems a lot is still not explained..........

not poking at you directly here, just, opening possibilities for discussion............

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:47 am

In English, both "hair" and "rain" are spoken of in the singular. Although it's possible to consider individual raindrops or hairs, it really doesn't have that much utility for most people.

It's tempting to mythologize a monotheism imposed from some abberant religion, but it really evolved out classic philosophy (maybe not "science" but definitely "rationalization") and contact with the east.

But if you have a sentimental attachment to ancient ways, so be it.

Post by **Elderberry** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:54 pm

ygmir wrote:

And, faith may be the only "truth", since, it requires no proof............

I don't think anything that cannot be proven can be considered to be true. Unless you're insane.

JK

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:48 pm

jkisha wrote:
ygmir wrote:

And, faith may be the only "truth", since, it requires no proof............

I don't think anything that cannot be proven can be considered to be true. Unless you're insane.

JK

does that say that only what can be proven is true? those nested negatives sometimes confuse me........

how eclectic do you want to get with that statement?
Especially in sub atomic physics and such..............

or, for that matter, what can be "proven" with 100% certainty?
If not complete, irrefutable proof, is not some of the evidence based on the "faith" that it's true?

is wood solid (leaving a straight line for someone here.....grin)?

or, can it be proven to be much more space that matter?

we can point to the effects and experience of how things work, but, can we prove them? not always............

The world certainly looks flat. But, we can see photos and such that "prove" otherwise. But, are we not taking as fact, and in faith, that, said photos are real? If we didn't experience or see it personally, everything we know is somewhat based on "faith" in the reporter............
And, even, at times, what we see or experience, is not "real"..........

ok, sorry, climbing down of philosophical soapbox now..........

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:33 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote: It's tempting to mythologize a monotheism imposed from some abberant religion, but it really evolved out classic philosophy (maybe not "science" but definitely "rationalization") and contact with the east.

But if you have a sentimental attachment to ancient ways, so be it.

Dougly, I think you are confusing Hellenism with Greek Mythology. Its OK most people do. We never had a torah or bible. Our Priests and Priestesses function only as a interpreters of the God's messages through channeling their energies and thoughts. The mythologies were written by poets and minstrals. Zeus, Hera, Athena, Apollo and other Gods are spiritual energies. Beings without bodies or physical form. It is through your own spiritual being that you are connected with them and those of the spiritual world.

If you search for post dated Sun Jul 04, 2004 10:59 pm page 4 on this thread you will find a basic explanation of hellenism. it contradicts almost every thought of judeo/christian/ muslim and most religions practised today. So you can see why the Christians would try to destroy it. If there were books with more details on Hellenism, they too were destroyed.

AIIZ

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:00 am

zeus, i believe dougly is saying that christianity developed largely through greek philosophy and reason ... plato, aristotle, &c ... and he is absolutely correct.

i am not prepared to argue this point, but i am close to someone who does know a great deal about all of this ... someone who teaches both ancient greek philosophy and christian theology at a major university, and his writings have the two linked all over the place. i have also sat in on his classes....

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:48 am

Please post examples!

I know that the Greeks wrote the bible since the christians didn't know how and incorporated Greek and local Mythology into the miracles.

Personally, it's not an important matter since philosophy is not always based on science, but conjecture.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:57 pm

Here's something that should start a fight or two;
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... eId=102119

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:02 pm

carbon dating is not a show on tv

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:24 am

Poor Moses who didn't knowes.

Let his people from desert oasis to oasis

never finding his promise land

everywhere is went people inhabit

becoming one of histories mass murderers

Romans came burnt all to ash

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 9:06 am

Apollonaris Zeus wrote:Please post examples!

I know that the Greeks wrote the bible since the christians didn't know how and incorporated Greek and local Mythology into the miracles.

Personally, it's not an important matter since philosophy is not always based on science, but conjecture.

Which Greeks? Post examples! Christian Greeks or illiterate Pagan Greeks? If the Bible incorporated Greek mythology, does that mean that you are announcing your conversion?

And your vaunted Antikythera mechanism, what science is this? Astrology!

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 9:11 am

can't sit still wrote:Here's something that should start a fight or two;
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... eId=102119

My, what an open-minded journal!
Anyway, here's your sign:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... eId=102274

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 9:36 am

Ugly Dougly wrote: And your vaunted Antikythera mechanism, what science is this? Astrology!

mathematics, geometry and astronomy. Its all in the Video.

the device revealed where Greek sciences where just before the Roman and christians destroyed their cultures, religion and sciences. If they kept alone, we would have colonized the planets by now and mankind would be safe from what is coming all too soon in the next few years. But what can you do with mobs of invading barbarians.

About the Ark, I will believe it after the carbon dating and inspection by archeologists. Otherwise, it's just another one of those Dark Age wonders better viewed in the Freak Circus like the shroud of turin or the bones of the saints desplayed in Cathedrals.

AIIZ

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:40 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote:
Apollonaris Zeus wrote:Please post examples!

I know that the Greeks wrote the bible since the christians didn't know how and incorporated Greek and local Mythology into the miracles.

Personally, it's not an important matter since philosophy is not always based on science, but conjecture.
Which Greeks? Post examples! Christian Greeks or illiterate Pagan Greeks? If the Bible incorporated Greek mythology, does that mean that you are announcing your conversion?

And your vaunted Antikythera mechanism, what science is this? Astrology!

hey, hey now...........

no, your not an allstar

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:43 pm

he didn't say "illiterate nordic pagans", silly ....

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:59 pm

silly....perhaps............

mayavin · Post by **mayavin** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:10 pm

if names were conclusive, we could but have names and end there...

what's a name?

a redirection of import, import of consideration

historical names are as cleft from cross-context as anything might be

the ultimate context is multi-dimensional, or merely one, depending on the girth you give an understanding of dimensia

time... space... worm or moth

whether mind or blind, duped or seen

split the hairs on cogs unseen

perhaps you'll flight or fight the mean

...disco's dead
let the theory-fops do the burying

or is the doctor in?

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:28 pm

mayavin ... are you going to burningman this year?

i would love to meet you ... and listen to you talk awhile ...

mayavin · Post by **mayavin** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:08 pm

i've hurried-rushed soo much, for the novelty i'll play with time

like an errant knight, soo recently to have sighted the damsel in the tower

i sit and compose

polish the armour here, brush out the horse's mane

go by way of a couple of midwestern burns

this year, i'll know, and long...

the next, and maybe thrice

i know myself stronger than my longing

even one so distant sweet as that

for now, here i sit

plastic tin cans and faux paper string

mayavin · Post by **mayavin** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:33 pm

ripe with unexpectable meetings
pleasures of chance encounter
swathed in art and artists
a quite muse
and spark

i'd carry words
and venture
tarry?

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:48 am

Now we're making sense.
Pushing Apollo's chains and yanking his buttons was getting tiresome.
Come over to the camp and we'll have a friendly boffer fight.

mayavin · Post by **mayavin** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 4:55 pm

ah...

the crux of the matter...

any linguistic transaction is at it's source a name

how else to distinguish verbs and adverbs, but to directly name them out?

yet this persitence...this insistence... and verily thereof

transubstantiated birdseed

the flight of a dove

mayavin · Post by **mayavin** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 5:13 pm

what then is venerable, beyond ability to name?

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 5:50 pm

nothing can be named for certain ....

names are nothing but words, devices required for communication...
and words can be understood, misinterpreted, mangled, confused, ignored.

but when communication breaks, what do we have?

if words of love are really words of hate, what then?

how can we know what we know?

and yet ... what else do we have?

mayavin · Post by **mayavin** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:48 pm

In logic and philosophy, proposition refers to either the "content"
or "meaning" of a meaningful declarative sentence or the pattern of
symbols, marks, or sounds that make up a meaningful declarative
sentence. Propositions in either case are intended to be truth-bearers,
that is, they are either true or false.

In relation to the mind, propositions are discussed primarily as they fit
into propositional attitudes. Propositional attitudes are simply attitudes
characteristic of folk psychology (belief, desire, etc.) that one can take
toward a proposition (e.g. 'it is raining', 'snow is white', etc.). In English,
propositions usually follow folk psychological attitudes by a "that clause"
(e.g. "Jane believes that it is raining"). In philosophy of mind and
psychology, mental states are often taken to primarily consist in
propositional attitudes. The propositions are usually said to be the "mental
content" of the attitude. For example, if Jane has a mental state of
believing that it is raining, her mental content is the proposition 'it is
raining'. Furthermore, since such mental states are about something
(namely propositions), they are said to be intentional mental states.
Philosophical debates surrounding propositions as they relate to
propositional attitudes have also recently centered on whether they are
internal or external to the agent or whether they are mind-dependent or
mind-independent entities (see the entry on internalism and externalism
in philosophy of mind).

what is it for communication to be whole or broken?

if it has a fullest potential, and spends it's time moving never more close,
shall we dub it broken?

and what for, if but two hundred years around, the drismal drall suddenly takes light, catches fire, and proves it all was more than worth the trouble?

if we agree with the above to any extent, we can take comfort that there are dependant and independant entities...

and, there being so, are in relation

the teeny spider in the corner will never tell you you are loved

should this make you sad?

that would be madness...

and of a most depressing kind

why string your feelings to vocular (hybrid of vocal and ocular) cues?

what else do we have?

how about feet?

and every bit, psychologically and all, should damn well balance of it's own accord

*edited for wonder*

mayavin · Post by **mayavin** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:56 pm

doesn't it make you wonder?

Gods

I believe that are...