Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Was it ever discussed is the gods in mythology could leave earth and travel through space?

Yeah, the Greeks believe that the Gods could use quantum waves to fly through space, of course they all knew they couldn't fly faster than light, their computers were able to tell them that anyways.

Yes, the Greek gods could travel through space--they had access to cold fusion and Hyper Ion Drives, but they refused to share those gifts with mortals: Prometheus had already given enough by then with his fire.

And there's a reason why the volcano on Mars is called Olympus Mons: after Zeus overthrew Cronus and the Titans, he relocated the gods from Mt. Olympus to that volcano. Olympus Mons means "Super Mountain" in Greek. The gods' inbred descendants are the ones that played against Michael Jordan and Bugs Bunny in Space Jam.

I don't think the Greeks even knew what space was.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, the Greeks believe that the Gods could use quantum waves to fly through space, of course they all knew they couldn't fly faster than light, their computers were able to tell them that anyways. Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yes, the Greek gods could travel through space--they had access to cold fusion and Hyper Ion Drives, but they refused to share those gifts with mortals: Prometheus had already given enough by then with his fire.

And there's a reason why the volcano on Mars is called Olympus Mons: after Zeus overthrew Cronus and the Titans, he relocated the gods from Mt. Olympus to that volcano. Olympus Mons means "Super Mountain" in Greek. The gods' inbred descendants are the ones that played against Michael Jordan and Bugs Bunny in Space Jam.

Hard to tell if you are serious or joking.

I can't tell either.

I want to call bullshit, but I think I recall reading about the "Greek Gods' incestuous off-spring versus Jordan and Looney Toons" thing in one of my high school history text-books.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I can't tell either.

I want to call bullshit, but I think I recall reading about the "Greek Gods' incestuous off-spring versus Jordan and Looney Toons" thing in one of my high school history text-books.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Was it ever discussed is the gods in mythology could leave earth and travel through space? They could go virtually anywhere the Greeks imagined, since this was all a product of human imagination. However, it is doubtful their conception of space is like ours today ... anymore than our conception of space today will resemble what is known 3000 years from now.

"Mom, could the ancient superheroes fly through space?"

Originally posted by Mindship
They could go virtually anywhere the Greeks imagined, since this was all a product of human imagination. However, it is doubtful their conception of space is like ours today ... anymore than our conception of space today will resemble what is known 3000 years from now.

"Mom, could the ancient superheroes fly through space?"

Since they all studied and where aware of the stars and constellations I didn't know if the gods existed anywhere else to them besides Mt. Olympus but since the stories are written based of earthly where abouts I guess its unlikely they thought much of anything else besides what they knew or could experience.

I find it very likely that humans continue to reshape the current model of the universe.

First some Italian wants a bigger universe and lays the seeds of that belief and gets burned to the stake.

Literally holes in a cloth of night is transformed into an earlier physical universe than is currently understood. stars are other suns suddenly.

We still make it more complicated, and for some reason I can't believe it away on my own, too many other perceptions and disbelief conflicting with my ability to reshape everything.

I truly believe that the earliest humans were immortal until they doubted their immortality and aged. I truly believe the earth may have been a million years old but then its age suddenly increased by several billion years because some stupid scientist had to verify and doubted deep down that the earth was that young. He may have proved the earth really was 1 million years old if he'd not doubted it.

This the nature of humans, we are Gods dumbed down and made miserable by our disbelief.

Science is the collective of rules that chain us down. Which would be a good thing if it chained everyone but me.

This is why it is my eternal life's goal to disprove every single scientific fact ever made by not doubting my belief that I, and only I, can manipulate reality to an unlimited degree and that there are no laws of nature but what I say as I do science in order to undo it. I'll disprove the age of the earth, this will be verified by tests, I'll disprove the understanding that my body ages but all others do so that I alone can be immortal.

My eventual goal is to make everyone worship me, of course.

Originally posted by Oneness
... we are Gods dumbed down and made miserable by our disbelief.

Science is the collective of rules that chain us down. Nicely phrased.

Originally posted by Oneness
My eventual goal is to make everyone worship me, of course. But by then, you'll no longer be "you."

Originally posted by Oneness
I find it very likely that humans continue to reshape the current model of the universe.

First some Italian wants a bigger universe and lays the seeds of that belief and gets burned to the stake.

Literally holes in a cloth of night is transformed into an earlier physical universe than is currently understood. stars are other suns suddenly.

We still make it more complicated, and for some reason I can't believe it away on my own, too many other perceptions and disbelief conflicting with my ability to reshape everything.

I truly believe that the earliest humans were immortal until they doubted their immortality and aged. I truly believe the earth may have been a million years old but then its age suddenly increased by several billion years because some stupid scientist had to verify and doubted deep down that the earth was that young. He may have proved the earth really was 1 million years old if he'd not doubted it.

This the nature of humans, we are Gods dumbed down and made miserable by our disbelief.

Science is the collective of rules that chain us down. Which would be a good thing if it chained everyone but me.

This is why it is my eternal life's goal to disprove every single scientific fact ever made by not doubting my belief that I, and only I, can manipulate reality to an unlimited degree and that there are no laws of nature but what I say as I do science in order to undo it. I'll disprove the age of the earth, this will be verified by tests, I'll disprove the understanding that my body ages but all others do so that I alone can be immortal.

My eventual goal is to make everyone worship me, of course.

All good and best wishes in achieving your goals, just don't go jumping off any roofs cos you really believe you're an immortal who can fly.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Since they all studied and where aware of the stars and constellations I didn't know if the gods existed anywhere else to them besides Mt. Olympus but since the stories are written based of earthly where abouts I guess its unlikely they thought much of anything else besides what they knew or could experience.

In most situations, the sky was thought to have a persona and the stars merely part of his make up. Therefore, they did not conceive of space as separate from the sky, and they had no such frame of reference to make such calls. Of course, some philosophers speculated that the earth was round even back in antiquity, but it never reshapd the myths.

Originally posted by Oneness
I find it very likely that humans continue to reshape the current model of the universe.

First some Italian wants a bigger universe and lays the seeds of that belief and gets burned to the stake.

Literally holes in a cloth of night is transformed into an earlier physical universe than is currently understood. stars are other suns suddenly.

We still make it more complicated, and for some reason I can't believe it away on my own, too many other perceptions and disbelief conflicting with my ability to reshape everything.

I truly believe that the earliest humans were immortal until they doubted their immortality and aged. I truly believe the earth may have been a million years old but then its age suddenly increased by several billion years because some stupid scientist had to verify and doubted deep down that the earth was that young. He may have proved the earth really was 1 million years old if he'd not doubted it.

This the nature of humans, we are Gods dumbed down and made miserable by our disbelief.

Science is the collective of rules that chain us down. Which would be a good thing if it chained everyone but me.

This is why it is my eternal life's goal to disprove every single scientific fact ever made by not doubting my belief that I, and only I, can manipulate reality to an unlimited degree and that there are no laws of nature but what I say as I do science in order to undo it. I'll disprove the age of the earth, this will be verified by tests, I'll disprove the understanding that my body ages but all others do so that I alone can be immortal.

My eventual goal is to make everyone worship me, of course.

And I have a cure-all elixir to sell you. Digi's Delectable Draught! Relieves all aches, cures all ills, it even works as a hair tonic! Just $99.98 (+shipping & handling) to my Paypal account and it can be yours today!

In other news, the more obvious delusions aside, what a disappointing post. You want to control reality with your thoughts and your end goal is universal worship? BOR-ING! Here's hoping someone cracks the code before you.

Originally posted by Oneness
I find it very likely that humans continue to reshape the current model of the universe.

First some Italian wants a bigger universe and lays the seeds of that belief and gets burned to the stake.

Literally holes in a cloth of night is transformed into an earlier physical universe than is currently understood. stars are other suns suddenly.

We still make it more complicated, and for some reason I can't believe it away on my own, too many other perceptions and disbelief conflicting with my ability to reshape everything.

I truly believe that the earliest humans were immortal until they doubted their immortality and aged. I truly believe the earth may have been a million years old but then its age suddenly increased by several billion years because some stupid scientist had to verify and doubted deep down that the earth was that young. He may have proved the earth really was 1 million years old if he'd not doubted it.

This the nature of humans, we are Gods dumbed down and made miserable by our disbelief.

Science is the collective of rules that chain us down. Which would be a good thing if it chained everyone but me.

This is why it is my eternal life's goal to disprove every single scientific fact ever made by not doubting my belief that I, and only I, can manipulate reality to an unlimited degree and that there are no laws of nature but what I say as I do science in order to undo it. I'll disprove the age of the earth, this will be verified by tests, I'll disprove the understanding that my body ages but all others do so that I alone can be immortal.

My eventual goal is to make everyone worship me, of course.

Amazing post, I expected no loss then from another immortal. No doubt that the first humans were immortal in a sense and one day they decided they were not and died.
Thank you.

^ Really good drugs?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Was it ever discussed is the gods in mythology could leave earth and travel through space? Classical mythology's notion of "space" was very antiquated.

The answer is yes, they could, but only because space was very small. It was basically a big ass ****ing canvas with light brites painted on it.

Or maybe I'm confusing it with Tolkien mythology, idk.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Amazing post, I expected no loss then from another immortal. No doubt that the first humans were immortal in a sense and one day they decided they were not and died.
Thank you. Srsly, whatever drug you take for such fantastical delusions that leave you cognizant enough to type with grammar... gimme some.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Srsly, whatever drug you take for such fantastical delusions that leave you cognizant enough to type with grammar... gimme some.

On the upside, now Oneness has someone to talk to.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
. No doubt that the first humans were immortal in a sense and one day they decided they were not and died.


Kinda Hemingwayish.

Originally posted by Robtard
Kinda Hemingwayish.

Do you mean drunk?

Is there a difference in this instance?

Originally posted by Robtard
Is there a difference in this instance?

Most likely a pill, and not a bottle.

I believe we are reality warpers limited by our inner beliefs.

But I also believe each of us have an unconscious spiritual destination that manifests itself in numbers we see, dreams we have, things that the people around say. That this spiritual destination will guide each and everyone of us to nirvana because consciously we are aiming at straws and wouldn't know how to achieve nirvana-permanence unless the method prevented itself to us, ipso facto, our spiritual destination has a guide that communicates with us in the ways I explained. If you have something on your mind something somebody might say will answer your question inadvertently, I guarantee you this will happen.

Look at Giordano Bruno, for instance. His life was miserable because he wanted to change reality, before him I don't think the universe was more than 10,000 years old and the sky might have literally been a curtain. Scientifically you can prove otherwise now, but then? Perhaps not so much, even with modern tools. The cosmos may be illusory yet, and that may be yet provable, even some have subjectively experienced space as 3D rather than 2D. They may have been under a delusion. Because Giordano Bruno did in fact change things, we are reality warpers.

But in his dream perhaps the spiritual guide was presenting him the curtain so he didn't continue to go down this path of destruction. But he fought it and consciously he made this dream-curtain 3D, our stars were other suns.

And he burned to the stake after a life of torment...was that what his spiritual guide would have wanted.

Look, I want happiness, first and foremost. I believe I am an anomaly as well, that is what my spiritual tells me, mine is a grander purpose.

I will follow it. Right now, it's telling me to stay with school, stay grounded, not too high, not too low. To make something of myself, to do science, computer science.

Look at any man in Biblical or any other religious text and the only ones to have achieved Nirvana permanence flew away, they went into the sky. They are not among us now but they exist in permanent satisfaction without regrets or let downs throughout their conscious existence. Death did not take them there, death merely reduces the cut in a supposed singular conscience, and birth increases them conically. We should want as many individualized consciousnesses in nirvana-permanence because the more the merrier, why did the supposed singular consciousness divide to begin with if this is not so? But right now the number individualized consciousnesses in a temporary, non-nirvana state, is increasing and the number in nirvana-permanence has not changed since those Gods parted ways.

"Clouds darken the sky.
The stars reign down.
The constellations stagger.
The bones of the hell hounds tremble.
The porters are silent.
When they see this King dawning as a soul.
Open are the double doors of the horizon.
Unlocked are its bolts.
Men fall.
Their names are not.
Seize thou this King by his arm.
Take this King to the sky, that he not die on earth among men.
Open are the double doors of the horizon.
Unlocked are its bolts.
He flies who flies.
This King flies away from you ye mortals.
He is not of the earth.
He is of the sky.
He flaps his wings like a Zeret Bird.
He goes to the sky.
He goes to the sky.
On the wind.
On the wind."

-Akhnaten, Act I

It seems you're using "scientific discovery" as "warping reality", ie someone who goes against set beliefs and proves their idea to be true. eg Copernicus

That makes you seem a little less cray-cray when put in that light.

Originally posted by Robtard
It seems you're using "scientific discovery" as "warping reality", ie someone who goes against set beliefs and proves their idea to be true. eg Copernicus

That makes you seem a little less cray-cray when put in that light.

I can't bend a spoon with telekinesis, consciously or unconsciously my understanding of nature does not permit such.

It may be that way with or without science.

Afterward I noted the interesting fact that after a certain point, still before the advent of science, no one was thought of as a God or an immortal.

Perhaps when you get too many individuals interference is produced. They become grounded and too distracted to follow down the perfect path, the road leading to nirvana paradise, consistently enough to go anywhere supernatural before death is accepted as the harsh reality.

And it is interesting that those who've made families and experienced a life filled with love tend to be more accepting of their fate. It is also interesting that staying clean and wanting to be successful enough to provide for your children so that they may be even more successful has always been what my spiritual guide has wanted for me.

If I could follow it so consistently so as to never go off track, who knows where I could go.

b295OBuDmyM

I know I was so negative as a child and most my life that I'd end up saying the worst will and that I live in hell. And shit hit the fan and I was fed some baad experiences. Was my negativity and lack of consistency, lack of inspiration or aspirations and goals, the culprit?

When was anyone thought of as an immortal?

People in the OT were believed to have lived for hundreds of years, but original sin made the first two humans mortal and the species they proliferated mortal. Even religions older than the Judeo-Christians didn't have humanity as being immortal, save divine beings or people who were specifically 'blessed' or 'cursed' by God, the gods or some other outside factor , iirc.

Originally posted by Robtard
When was anyone thought of as an immortal?

I know people in the OT were believed to have lived for hundreds of years, but original sin made the first two humans mortal and the species they proliferated mortal. Even religions older than the Judeo-Christians didn't have immortals, save divine beings or people who were specifically 'blessed' or 'cursed' by God, the gods or some other outside factor , iirc. Well, there are the Demi-Gods who ascended to Godhood, there's Jesus Christ, Julius Caesar, Egyptian Pharaohs, and many many more who began as mortals. As per those Egyptians, those of the OT, and early humans in Hinduism, their lives were considered eternal, "long in duration", "living forever and ever". I would be referring to those blessed by God.

Originally posted by Oneness
Well, there are the Demi-Gods who ascended to Godhood, there's Jesus Christ, Julius Caesar, Egyptian Pharaohs, and Hinduists, and many many more who began as mortals.

-Demi-gods are just that. Divine. They're not real though.

-Jesus is essentially (a facet of) God. If you believe in Christianity.

-Never heard of Julius Caesar as being immortal, unless you're referring to people talking about him long after his death. Many people have achieved this kind of "immortality". The general consensus is that he died via stabbing.

-Pharoahs didn't acheive immortality in life, but in the afterlife. They're dead though.

-Hinduist as in incarnation?

Though this doesn't gel with your previous statement concerning people being immortal and before science. It's fine though.

In the case of Hinduism it is explained that people of the earliest ages of each cycle were taller, fairer, and lived trillions of years IIRC. lol

Originally posted by Oneness
In the case of Hinduism it is explained that people of the earliest ages of each cycle were taller, fairer, and lived trillions of years IIRC. lol

Sounds like white-washing of an Eastern religion.

Originally posted by Oneness
In the case of Hinduism it is explained that people of the earliest ages of each cycle were taller, fairer, and lived trillions of years IIRC. lol

This might make sense of anything was here trillions of years ago.

This thread is why people shouldn't smoke crack as well.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
This might make sense of anything was here trillions of years ago.

This thread is why people shouldn't smoke crack as well. Whenever you try to rationalize certainty in providence of a good life from some sort of benevolent abstraction - you may seem ridiculous to others. That's because it's a certainty that if I do my job to the fullest of my ability I'll be taken care of.

You're taking something way out of context, I'm not saying anything about that sect Hinduism being right on the origin of humanity.

I'm pretty sure this is the reason I respond negatively when presented with the idea that new age-y spirituality is a step in the right direction from institutions. Same problem, different details. It's espousing one type of magical thinking over another, not getting to the root of the issue by emphasizing critical thinking and actually understanding the universe around us. Because Oneness can continue his line of thought, smugly positing something that has neither proof nor evidence nor the faintest scrap of plausibility, with the incredulity he faces acting as fuel for his irrational fervor. Nothing we say can penetrate that thought-bubble, because it's designed to be insular, a belief held not only despite evidence but in spite of contrary evidence, and made stronger because of both. It's standard religious faith-based logic, just toward a new end.

I legit lol'd at Julius Caesar being an immortal though. At least non-traditional yahoos can occasionally surprise me with a unique bit of crazy.

You want wonder and awe within the realm of the possible, plausible, and provable? I'd encourage you to watch the new Cosmos with Neil Degrasse Tyson. Also, do yourself a favor and research the case against the Law of Attraction. I have no delusions that it will change your mind, but if nothing else, you'll gain some understanding of the entire debate.

I'm not being anti-science here.

To be clear, Galileo would have made the discovery regardless of what Bruno suspected. I was using the man as an example of why there is human suffering.

Based on my subjective experience I believe there is at least an optimal life experience (a life without suffering) based on the decisions made therein and that the correct decisions are presented to us throughout our lifetime.

Originally posted by Oneness
I'm not being anti-science here.

Originally posted by Oneness
Science is the collective of rules that chain us down.

Well at least you're consistent.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm pretty sure this is the reason I respond negatively when presented with the idea that new age-y spirituality is a step in the right direction from institutions. Same problem, different details. It's espousing one type of magical thinking over another, not getting to the root of the issue by emphasizing critical thinking and actually understanding the universe around us. Because Oneness can continue his line of thought, smugly positing something that has neither proof nor evidence nor the faintest scrap of plausibility, with the incredulity he faces acting as fuel for his irrational fervor. Nothing we say can penetrate that thought-bubble, because it's designed to be insular, a belief held not only despite evidence but in spite of contrary evidence, and made stronger because of both. It's standard religious faith-based logic, just toward a new end.

I legit lol'd at Julius Caesar being an immortal though. At least non-traditional yahoos can occasionally surprise me with a unique bit of crazy.

You want wonder and awe within the realm of the possible, plausible, and provable? I'd encourage you to watch the new Cosmos with Neil Degrasse Tyson. Also, do yourself a favor and research the case against the Law of Attraction. I have no delusions that it will change your mind, but if nothing else, you'll gain some understanding of the entire debate. I envy your vocabulary.

Originally posted by Digi
Well at least you're consistent. Chaining us down can be a good thing.

What I meant was that the method of science could go full circle. That should blow your mind if you think about it. Everything proved could possibly be disproved, or perhaps whatever unscientific belief has been postulated could be uncovered for what it truly is through science. Either is great.

I'm stressing the significance of the self-awareness throughout nature in general. To me, a superior being that is concerned with us is more far fetched than each of our minds somehow having an outward, prescient projection that knows the path best suited for each individual.

How would that be possible? Earlier I put forth the proposition that individuality is the result of a conically divided consciousness and we have no clue how deeply other consciousnesses, perhaps superior beings, might permeate reality. I mean the depth of the presence of the conscious eyes of whatever else may be out there.

Originally posted by Oneness
Chaining us down can be a good thing.

Oh, we already know you think that. Remember when you went full super-villain on page 1? Let's remind our home listeners:

Originally posted by Oneness
Which would be a good thing if it chained everyone but me.

Originally posted by Oneness
What I meant was that the method of science could go full circle. That should blow your mind if you think about it. Everything proved could possibly be disproved, or perhaps whatever unscientific belief has been postulated could be uncovered for what it truly is through science. Either is great.

You're essentially writing a what-if novel here. Hey, it could possibly be proven that ice cream cones are sentient aliens slowly being absorbed into our bodies to make us transcendent beings!

That has literally the same level of evidential credence as your ideas. Possible vs. plausible. You fail to grok the difference.

Originally posted by Oneness
I'm stressing the significance of the self-awareness throughout nature in general. To me, a superior being that is concerned with us is more far fetched than each of our minds somehow having an outward, prescient projection that knows the path best suited for each individual.

You're halfway there. Both are far-fetched. Apply some of that same skepticism to your own beliefs to see if they truly hold up.

Originally posted by Oneness
How would that be possible? Earlier I put forth the proposition that individuality is the result of a conically divided consciousness and we have no clue how deeply other consciousnesses, perhaps superior beings, might permeate reality. I mean the depth of the presence of the conscious eyes of whatever else may be out there.

Aaaand this just straight-up doesn't make sense. It might to you, but you have a long way to go to make a coherent point to anyone else. Magical thinking with a handful of pseudo-scientific and/or spiritual terms is the hallmark of the bullsh*t New Age movement, and the myriad forms it takes (Law of Attraction among them). You're one invocation of quantum mechanics away from earning your advanced degree.

If you haven't noticed (I'm guessing you have), he has this weird Herbert spin thing going one. ie he might be the Kwisatz Haderach (or comparitive being).

I find it oddly entertaining.

Originally posted by Digi
Oh, we already know you think that. Remember when you went full super-villain on page 1? Let's remind our home listeners:

And good thing it does hold me down.



I'd imagine there are scientists out there who are religious. I'm going into detail with my belief in why there's human suffering and the possibility of one minimizing it greatly by letting certain things sink in. Like the name of a school and its programs offered, dropped randomly in a conversation, and how it suits your goals perfectly. Who's to say that isn't providence? Throughout human history people have always practiced spirituality, yet there's no scientific method for proving or disproving spirituality entirely. Yet science builds a bigger picture and perhaps it might get us there someday but for now, I hold to it in that I'm blind without a guide. I've been able to put myself to a fuller use because of my guide. I've avoided a lot of heart-ache because of my guide.

We never have a complete picture of our future, yet we have a set of goals, and what we do to get there further paints that picture. What I'm getting at is letting certain events, phenomena and thoughts of others - specifically those that are coincidental - sink in has subjectively brought me changes, completely redirecting the course I was on, so much so that I believe the life I was trying to take may as well have been a blind man's. Was that fight I witnessed put there for a reason? How did I find my friend in a parade with 60,000 people so quickly having nothing to go off of? Was I meant to be there that day?

That is me questioning the notion that we are on our own subjectively, without doing science yes but I can remain dubiously skeptical, can I not?

But are they equally unlikely?

Between a super being just wanting us to be happy and the postulated influence of our collective potential on the world around us merely to the extent of pushing the individuals that compose this collective toward the right path, I mean. I'm speaking of a natural system exclusive to life, more precisely self-aware lifeforms intelligent enough to discern such phenomena. We don't know that much about how the systems in nature operate, we are very limited on what we can see.

To me, that would seem more likely based on the observations I've made on how we treat animals or insects that don't really concern us. We don't help an ant-hive flourish. We have pets, but we aren't necessarily concerned with getting our dog a mate and having it reproduce because pets are not in their natural environment, humanity is at this point in time.

Now does that make sense to you?

Honestly I'm afraid to be "dubiously skeptical". This notion of being on my own is absolutely mortifying. If I didn't have spirituality at this point I would attempt to commit suicide immediately.

But not only is this "sign-following" harmless and the notion of spiritual guidance comforting, but it's never not worked.

I'll use science to help me understand how things work, to learn, to develop, to improve things, to understand the cogs in play, and to influence some of my decisions but what something happens to me there's meaning in it. It is spirituality in its most undefined, unknown, form - the mechanisms that work it I don't understand and I have no method to understand them, but I follow its message.

You're all over the ----ing place. You need to spend some time describing your thoughts coherently. It will be much better time spent than another diatribe on your beliefs that hits a dozen unrelated points in the span of a paragraph.

You've seen my criticisms, and either ignored them or insufficiently addressed them. So with this latest batch of word soup, I think I'm checking out. Best of luck becoming god of reality and subjecting us all to your will...

Originally posted by Oneness
My eventual goal is to make everyone worship me, of course.

Originally posted by Digi
word soup If you can find a single example on this page I'll not think of you as a tool.

Barring subjective because I used it correctly.

I'm addressing all of your points, just not very smoothly atm.

I wasn't expecting to be taken too seriously to begin with because I tend to come on here and let out what I'm thinking in threads like this from time to time.

You're erroneous to claim that I'm disregarding everything empirical in life for some self-invented "new-age" religious belief or whatever.

I know that I haven't accurately painted you the picture of what I'm thinking, because I'm having trouble being articulate as of late.

So really:

I wasn't expecting to be taken too seriously to begin with because I tend to come on here and let out what I'm thinking in threads like this from time to time.

I know that I haven't accurately painted you the picture of what I truly believe, because I'm having trouble being articulate as of late.

That's all I intended to convey in the previous post.

Ok, word soup? I'll bite. Let's just take one of those posts.

Originally posted by Oneness
But are they equally unlikely?

Starting with a non sequitur. Never a good sign.

Originally posted by Oneness
Between a super being just wanting us to be happy and the postulated influence of our collective potential on the world around us merely to the extent of pushing the individuals that compose this collective toward the right path, I mean.

"Postulated influence of our collective potential..." Already we're off to a possibly incomprehensible phrase. But this postulated collective potential on the world is "pushing the individuals that compose this collective toward the right path..."

So...a postulated influence of potential is pushing a collective toward a path. I'm pretty sure I could stop right there. Technically, it makes grammatical sense (probably?) but it's already straining my brain. But we're not done...

Originally posted by Oneness
I'm speaking of a natural system exclusive to life...

Wait, are we still on the postulated influence, or is this a new divergent point? Let's see if you clarify...

Originally posted by Oneness
...more precisely self-aware lifeforms intelligent enough to discern such phenomena. We don't know that much about how the systems in nature operate, we are very limited on what we can see.

Self aware lifeforms. So, humans? But in the next sentence, you talk about systems in nature and not understanding how they operate. So are the self-aware beings humans or the "systems in nature" of the next sentence? And how does this relate back to the postulated influence of the last paragraph. Are they two separate thoughts?

Originally posted by Oneness
To me, that would seem more likely based on the observations I've made on how we treat animals or insects that don't really concern us. We don't help an ant-hive flourish. We have pets, but we aren't necessarily concerned with getting our dog a mate and having it reproduce because pets are not in their natural environment, humanity is at this point in time.

And now we're talking about animal treatment. Are these the systems in nature? Presumably. But this also never materializes into a point. Pets aren't in their natural environment...but we are? What point does that make? How does this relate back to the earlier paragraphs on collective influence and/or God?

Originally posted by Oneness
Now does that make sense to you?

In a word, no. I used to have to grade hundreds of English papers on a monthly basis for a living when I was a teacher. I can't begin to tell you what I'd say in response to something like this. Oh wait, I just did.

And let's be clear: This doesn't even get into the validity of the content. This is your thought construction only. A full rebuttal to this would have to attempt to disambiguate the above confusion. But I'm limiting myself to your writing here.

...

You're right, of course. I'm being something of a tool. But it's not without reason.
1. You're barely making sense, at best, and jumping between topics in indecipherable ways.
2. You're on an internet forum, which means you're willingly subjecting yourself to rebuttals and/or criticism. If you're not willing to take some heat, you shouldn't be here. I'm not making ad hominem attacks. I'm sure you're a decent guy. I'm just saying your arguments are sh*t. The latter is acceptable. I just don't pull my punches when I think something's BS.
3. You haven't addressed many of the criticisms directly, instead opting to reassert your views in ways that don't even disambiguate earlier statements.
4. Oh, and you'd like to be the sole inheritor of reality shaping powers, and would use them to bend us in worship of you. So excuse me if I don't give you the moral benefit of the doubt. You'd do well in a comic universe. But fortunately for the rest of us unenlightened plebeians, we're in a universe we're you're simply wrong and won't get your chance at godhood.

The One makes some interesting points for his argument as does Digi.

Originally posted by Digi
I'd encourage you to watch the new Cosmos with Neil Degrasse Tyson.

He's no Carl.* But with his authentic, boyish enthusiasm, Neil is, fer shurr, the worthy successor. And while I also miss Vangelis' musical score, the special effects and updated material certainly make up for it.

*I am biased. The original Cosmos was like a religious experience for me.

Originally posted by Mindship
*I am biased. The original Cosmos was like a religious experience for me.

Me too.

I took the telecourse my first year of college.

Originally posted by Oneness
So really:

I wasn't expecting to be taken too seriously to begin with because I tend to come on here and let out what I'm thinking in threads like this from time to time.

I know that I haven't accurately painted you the picture of what I truly believe, because I'm having trouble being articulate as of late.

That's all I intended to convey in the previous post.

I enjoyed your posts regardless.

Originally posted by Mindship


He's no Carl.* But with his authentic, boyish enthusiasm, Neil is, fer shurr, the worthy successor. And while I also miss Vangelis' musical score, the special effects and updated material certainly make up for it.

*I am biased. The original Cosmos was like a religious experience for me.

I'm only passingly familiar with the Sagan version.

Honestly, the audience is people who don't really know science. I feel like, even as a layman, I've had enough of an interest in scientific findings that a lot of the information won't be new to me. Some will, of course. But I can't personally be excited, even though I'm ecstatic that it's happening with NDT, and on a major network. Maybe subsequent episodes will go further into realms I'm unfamiliar with; I'm hoping the early stuff was just the primer.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm only passingly familiar with the Sagan version.

Honestly, the audience is people who don't really know science. I feel like, even as a layman, I've had enough of an interest in scientific findings that a lot of the information won't be new to me. Some will, of course. But I can't personally be excited, even though I'm ecstatic that it's happening with NDT, and on a major network. Maybe subsequent episodes will go further into realms I'm unfamiliar with; I'm hoping the early stuff was just the primer.

Agreed with this. The first episode had almost no new information for me, but I still enjoyed it's entertainment value.

I have had this issue with Oneness before, and I too disected one of his statements. The problem is they are words (some of them sure impressive), arranged in grammatical order, but they don't convey a message. They are empty.

So when Time Immemorials says

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The One makes some interesting points for his argument as does Digi.

that is not true. Because there were no points made in One's posts.


However, Oneness says he is working on his communication skills, so perhaps that will change in the future.

I just instinctively assumed Time Immemorial was Oneness' sock. Why else would anyone who actually read his posts say that?

Originally posted by Digi
I'm only passingly familiar with the Sagan version.

Honestly, the audience is people who don't really know science. I feel like, even as a layman, I've had enough of an interest in scientific findings that a lot of the information won't be new to me. Some will, of course. But I can't personally be excited, even though I'm ecstatic that it's happening with NDT, and on a major network. Maybe subsequent episodes will go further into realms I'm unfamiliar with; I'm hoping the early stuff was just the primer. Carl went through the whole shebang, from A to Z, from historic precedents through modern (at the time) understanding to futuristic speculation (IIRC, "Cosmos" was also the first science program to make extensive use of early CGI). He was terrific at simplifying complex concepts. But indeed, much has not changed since his day, and I'm curious to see what type of spin Neil will put on that to keep it "fresh." OTOH, there is also much that has changed, so much more we have learned (eg, we did not know of galactic superclusters or the prevalence of supermassive black holes, in Carl's day), and I anxiously await how Neil's Cosmos will present the new material.

And of course, there's always the special FX. I could virtually watch any science program with great effects over and over again, especially if I prepare ( ) beforehand.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I have had this issue with Oneness before, and I too disected one of his statements. The problem is they are words (some of them sure impressive), arranged in grammatical order, but they don't convey a message. They are empty.

So when Time Immemorials says



that is not true. Because there were no points made in One's posts.


However, Oneness says he is working on his communication skills, so perhaps that will change in the future.

I try not to take sides in discussion like that and muddy the water. I think they both have an interesting debate going on.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I just instinctively assumed Time Immemorial was Oneness' sock. Why else would anyone who actually read his posts say that?

Completely different writing styles.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I try not to take sides in discussion like that and muddy the water. I think they both have an interesting debate going on.

Being peacekeeper is fine, I can respect it. But there's a reasonable line to be drawn. What if one side was espousing the ethnic cleansing of the Jews? Is playing peacekeeper the best option? Obviously that's an extreme example, but it serves to make a point: that the line exists somewhere. It's just a matter of where you draw it. Do you dutifully pat someone on the back who's being biased? Doesn't have his facts straight? Isn't making sense? I'd say that being respectful is actually the opposite. Truly being respectful of the debate process is the ability to call out BS when you see it, but not have it devolve into personal attacks. I have no issue with Oneness personally, but I think his logic is incoherent, and his points demonstrably false. I'd consider it more disrespectful to him if I said nothing or "agreed to disagree" than if I challenged him.

What interesting points do you think Oneness is making? I want to hear that. Because your endorsement of both sides lacks definition.

All that awesomeness aside, yes, the gods could fly through space.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I try not to take sides in discussion like that and muddy the water. I think they both have an interesting debate going on.

You should be an American journalist...

Originally posted by Bardock42
You should be an American journalist...

Originally posted by Digi
Being peacekeeper is fine, I can respect it. But there's a reasonable line to be drawn. What if one side was espousing the ethnic cleansing of the Jews? Is playing peacekeeper the best option? Obviously that's an extreme example, but it serves to make a point: that the line exists somewhere. It's just a matter of where you draw it. Do you dutifully pat someone on the back who's being biased? Doesn't have his facts straight? Isn't making sense? I'd say that being respectful is actually the opposite. Truly being respectful of the debate process is the ability to call out BS when you see it, but not have it devolve into personal attacks. I have no issue with Oneness personally, but I think his logic is incoherent, and his points demonstrably false. I'd consider it more disrespectful to him if I said nothing or "agreed to disagree" than if I challenged him.

What interesting points do you think Oneness is making? I want to hear that. Because your endorsement of both sides lacks definition.

Well the thread really went in the other way to be honest, I created it to talk about kind of greek gods and how people have seen them more or less, he brought up some interesting thoughts to mind about how human were all immortal at one point and I was interesting in reading this philosophies.

When he said "I truly believe that the earliest humans were immortal until they doubted their immortality and aged. I truly believe the earth may have been a million years old but then its age suddenly increased by several billion years because some stupid scientist had to verify and doubted deep down that the earth was that young. He may have proved the earth really was 1 million years old if he'd not doubted it."

This got me thinking alot about the biblical scriptures and how back in those days people seemed to live for a thousand years and before that who knows how long.

When he said "Science is the collective of rules that chain us down. Which would be a good thing if it chained everyone but me. "

That makes me think that we are bound by what can only be explained even though we cannot explain everything and can only explain what we can see. We can't explain or define what say could be happening in another galaxy, maybe gravity is different there, maybe there are other elements. Only what we know and can explain is on this earth.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
...This got me thinking alot about the biblical scriptures and how back in those days people seemed to live for a thousand years and before that who knows how long...

But people didn't live that long. These are just very old stories that were added to the early writings that later because the bible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But people didn't live that long. These are just very old stories that were added to the early writings that later because the bible.

I interested in his thoughts of how we used to be all immortal more then anything else.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I interested in his thoughts of how we used to be all immortal more then anything else.

But we were never immortal.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Well the thread really went in the other way to be honest, I created it to talk about kind of greek gods and how people have seen them more or less, he brought up some interesting thoughts to mind about how human were all immortal at one point and I was interesting in reading this philosophies.

When he said "I truly believe that the earliest humans were immortal until they doubted their immortality and aged. I truly believe the earth may have been a million years old but then its age suddenly increased by several billion years because some stupid scientist had to verify and doubted deep down that the earth was that young. He may have proved the earth really was 1 million years old if he'd not doubted it."

This got me thinking alot about the biblical scriptures and how back in those days people seemed to live for a thousand years and before that who knows how long.

When he said "Science is the collective of rules that chain us down. Which would be a good thing if it chained everyone but me. "

That makes me think that we are bound by what can only be explained even though we cannot explain everything and can only explain what we can see. We can't explain or define what say could be happening in another galaxy, maybe gravity is different there, maybe there are other elements. Only what we know and can explain is on this earth.

It's fine to wonder about things we don't know. But quite another to hold them as likely or even remotely possible. To use one of your examples, we have very good reasons for believing that gravity is constant throughout the universe. That doesn't make it irrefutable, but there is literally nothing to suggest otherwise.

So when someone talks about us being immortal or even longer-lived, it's entirely made up. We have documented evidence that lifespans were significantly shorter than ours throughout much of recorded history, and no reason to believe otherwise. And if you choose to believe the Bible in a literal sense when it says people lived for thousands of years, there are other problems at work.

Basically, it means we don't have all the answers, but saying "we don't have all the answers" isn't intellectual justification for making stuff up.

Do you disagree with any of that?

Don't you think in a environment without pollution, radiation, cell phones, millions of chemicals surrounding us, chemical treated water we drink, not having much of an ozone or firmament to protect us, diseases, hunger, malnutrition, degeneration of our food's nutrients we actually could be living shorter then people from the ancient scriptures? I would think those people lived a much cleaner life without all the current products of the industrial revolution and its citizens in my opinion.

Except they routinely died from cholera or hang nail.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Don't you think in a environment without pollution, radiation, cell phones, millions of chemicals surrounding us, chemical treated water we drink, not having much of an ozone or firmament to protect us, diseases, hunger, malnutrition, degeneration of our food's nutrients we actually could be living shorter then people from the ancient scriptures? I would think those people lived a much cleaner life without all the current products of the industrial revolution and its citizens in my opinion.

The evidence we have disagrees with you. Today's advanced civilizations are, as best we can tell, the longest lived era in human history, usually by a lot.

You're also taking a needlessly dystopian approach here. We understand complex nutrition, diet, fitness, etc. and have medicine and medical practices that are exponentially better than even 50 years ago, let alone hundreds or thousands. Most of what you mentioned has existed in every era of history. But nothing I just countered with existed until the last 100 years, with several advances only in the last 10-20. And a couple you mentioned have no discernible affect on aging, like cell phones and "radiation." Sure, if you're in the fallout zone of an old blast, it might be harmful. But 99.9% of the population, not so much.

In any case, don't take my word for it. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

I realize it's wiki, but some basic research into evolutionary findings will corroborate the data. Current world life expectancy is about 20 years better than the next closest era, dating back to the Paleolithic Era. Even ignoring infant deaths, which dramatically hurt the numbers from other eras, we're about 5 years better than the next closest (and that includes modern child mortality rates). Anyway, Google is your friend.

Well your the forum leader, I learn from leaders.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Well your the forum leader, I learn from leaders.

Actually lil bitchiness is the forum mod.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Actually lil bitchiness is the forum mod.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Well your the forum leader, I learn from leaders.

I mod a couple dead comic book forums. That means jack all. I'd rather hear your response to me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


Just ignore it. He might be trolling, might just be screwing around.

Originally posted by Digi
..Just ignore it. He might be trolling, might just be screwing around.

I was just watching him roll on the ground.

The Greek gods could travel through dimensions the comics say.
When Ares fought X-man in the comic it transcended dimensions for example.

Originally posted by Wonder Man
The Greek gods could travel through dimensions the comics say.
When Ares fought X-man in the comic it transcended dimensions for example.

I think this is a very appropriate point. All gods (including Gods) are the comic book heros of the past.

Thor > Ares.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Thor > Ares.

Here we go again!

Originally posted by Wonder Man
The Greek gods could travel through dimensions the comics say.
When Ares fought X-man in the comic it transcended dimensions for example. Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think this is a very appropriate point. All gods (including Gods) are the comic book heros of the past. Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Thor > Ares.

Agreed

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Agreed

Agreed!

Originally posted by Mindship
They could go virtually anywhere the Greeks imagined, since this was all a product of human imagination. However, it is doubtful their conception of space is like ours today ... anymore than our conception of space today will resemble what is known 3000 years from now.

"Mom, could the ancient superheroes fly through space?" if i recall the Greeks had a basic concept of space and applied it to their greek mythology.

the cosmos was basically space to them with chaos and order swirling around.
it was also a bubble/sphere universe like a solar system with worlds, sun, moon and nothing beyond it.

Originally posted by Nietzschean
if i recall the Greeks had a basic concept of space and applied it to their greek mythology.

the cosmos was basically space to them with chaos and order swirling around.
it was also a bubble/sphere universe like a solar system with worlds, sun, moon and nothing beyond it.

Was it Cronos who created the universe to the greeks?

No, Cronus was the youngest child of Gaia and Uranus.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No, Cronus was the youngest child of Gaia and Uranus.

LoL, Greeks doing it greek.

Little known fact, that's the real purpose of Greek yogurt.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Little known fact, that's the real purpose of Greek yogurt.

Lets keep that a little known fact.

Trying to understand what the difference between a Nymph and a actual god is, Thetis appears to be both...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thetis

Nymphs love noshing on the old spam jagger.

Why was Hecules so much stronger then Perseus?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Why was Hecules so much stronger then Perseus? Reasons. There has to be a "greatest" and Heracles was the lucky one.

So since Zeus is the father/king of the gods, can he replicate all the powers of the other gods?

Zeus isn't the father. He's the son of Cronus.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Zeus isn't the father. He's the son of Cronus.

But Cronus wasn't a god. He was a Titian.

Ugh, semantics. Olympians, Titans, it's all Greek to me.

Greek Mythology regardless...

Universal subjectivity should be treated as objective fact but it's not.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
So since Zeus is the father/king of the gods, can he replicate all the powers of the other gods? No, he couldn't.

He didn't create all of the Olympians. Some are his siblings, and their domains are theirs alone.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Thor > Ares. Well considering Ares in the eyes of the Greeks and in their stories was the epitome of a punk b!tch internet badass, yeah, I'd say that's true.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
So since Zeus is the father/king of the gods, can he replicate all the powers of the other gods?

Zeus mostly just turns himself into animals to have sex with humans and animals. He will do a golden shower or transgender move on occasion as well.

Originally posted by Oneness
Greek Mythology regardless...

Universal subjectivity should be treated as objective fact but it's not.

What is "Universal subjectivity"? And why should it be treated as "objective fact"?

Originally posted by NemeBro
No, he couldn't.

He didn't create all of the Olympians. Some are his siblings, and their domains are theirs alone.

Gotcha