are gods of the ancients really a myth?

look at this ancient pagan gods:



anubis



aman



zeus

are these gods really myth? or are they real? where they come from? where they went?

there is one certain fact : they don't live on the surface of earth because they are not seen. then where are they?

there are some possibilities of their existence:

1] they live in far distant planets in space

2] they live on this earth invisible to human eyes.

in both possibilities they exist. modern science do not test all possibilities before come into conclusion. but here in my thread i will test all possibilities.

what do you think?

I might tend to the idea that they are from space, a distent planet or some such... in which case you might as well call them aliens.... but then more often i tend to think of the gods as representative symbols for forces within nature... forces we perhaps do not understand yet...

xxx200 wrote:

look at this ancient pagan gods:



anubis



aman



zeus

are these gods really myth? or are they real? where they come from? where they went?

there is one certain fact : they don't live on the surface of earth because they are not seen. then where are they?

there are some possibilities of their existence:

1] they live in far distant planets in space

2] they live on this earth invisible to human eyes.

in both possibilities they exist. modern science do not test all possibilities before come into conclusion. but here in my thread i will test all possibilities.

what do you think?

Another possibility: these gods are creations of man, ideas which man has constructed. No god has a "literal" existence, there is no actual being which corresponds to the utterances of all the prophets, mystics or saints, every religion is a belief- and ideation-system which emerged because it provided a certain useful function and role for mankind.

Along with this possibility comes the idea that literal belief in these "gods" is tantamount to delusional thinking. Not entirely irrational because there is certain usefulness and value to man to worship at the feet of these deities of his thought; the gods serve as unificational principles for man, higher order manifestations of a wider unity and value in which man can situate himself toward "reality". To believe in the eternal stabilizes consciousness; to believe in life after death offers respite from the anxiety and fear of death which has been bred into man; to believe in a personal god or divinie being lends a certain sense of justification and certainty to one's life. Also, belief in god acts as a useful socially stabilizing and mediating power, and can ground the legislative tyranny upon which civilization (the repression and sublimation/redirection of the "instincts" into pre-ordained channels) is constructed.

Quote :

Another possibility: these gods are creations of man, ideas which man has constructed. No god has a "literal" existence, there is no actual being which corresponds to the utterances of all the prophets, mystics or saints, every religion is a belief- and ideation-system which emerged because it provided a certain useful function and role for mankind.

yes that is also a possibility. but then if these gods whom i am talking about don't exist how come their statue be erected by men. if the statue design is imagination, that imagination must have a basis. people must see those things somewhere then they manipulate things through their imagination. and you see today we find giant skeletons from all over the world. who are they? so there is a remote possibility that these giants must have some relation to these gods.

Quote :

Along with this possibility comes the idea that literal belief in these "gods" is tantamount to delusional thinking. Not entirely irrational because there is certain usefulness and value to man to worship at the feet of these deities of his thought; the gods serve as unificational principles for man, higher order manifestations of a wider unity and value in which man can situate himself toward "reality". To believe in the eternal stabilizes consciousness; to believe in life after death offers respite from the anxiety and fear of death which has been bred into man; to believe in a personal god or divinie being lends a certain sense of justification and certainty to one's life. Also, belief in god acts as a useful socially stabilizing and mediating power, and can ground the legislative tyranny upon which civilization (the repression and sublimation/redirection of the "instincts" into pre-ordained channels) is constructed.

this is applicable only to a particular belief system called christianity and judaism and their step brother islam. it is not applicable to all the religion of the world. not all world religion teaches to dominate others. only the 3 mentioned above teaches.

besides it is an investigation and not an attempt to prove existance of monotheistic christian god.

Abstract wrote:

I might tend to the idea that they are from space, a distent planet or some such... in which case you might as well call them aliens.... but then more often i tend to think of the gods as representative symbols for forces within nature... forces we perhaps do not understand yet...

if they are representative symbol then statue of lenin, stalin, king george V are also representative symbol. they are living being.they are alien.. yes. that is logical. i think they reside in distant planets and they visited earth invisibly. that's why we don't see them.

There used to be this little Spongebob figurine lying around my house somewhere. I think it came from a happy meal. That is basically a little statue. According to you, because man has made Spongebob statues, Spongebob must exist. There is literally no other reason for a Spongebob figurine/statue to exist besides the fact that men met and interacted with a Sponge with legs that could talk and walk around.



I'm sorry, but this thread is one of the dumbest threads I have ever seen on the internet. I need to go take a shower just to feel right again after having posted in it. Not to get clean, no, but rather because I need to jerk off to the thought of the 15 year old girl who lives next door to me so that I can feel dirty and ashamed of myself, because that shame would actually be a more pleasant feeling than the one I have after having posted in this thread.

I agree with Capable as far as what religion has mean so far, and want to take it a step further. Belief in a creator God only belongs to reality as a relief to the problem rationality poses itself: "why being"?
"Because it was created and it was good" is as close to an observation as most of us will get, and in that sense not incorrect, but to infer or deduce from the fact that the universe is created a creator-God, and from the fact that the universe is seen as good when seen in terms of its creational nature that this god is Good, is unnecessary and therefore illogical. What we can infer instead is that within the universe, as within the car is the engine and within the engine the fuel and the combustion, there is a creational aspect. One layer of the universe creates, gives cause and shape to other, more outer layers.

The most comprehensive of these outer layers is the empirical world. Science is the study of the outer layer of the cosmos - its consequence, and the regularities (ambitiously abstracted as "constants", "laws") thereof. The inner science is far more obscure, particular, "coincidentally arrived at" - unaccessible for a disinterested mind. This obscurity is cemented in patterns of knowledge-procreation because its consequences can not be perceived directly. In as far as it is empirically determinable, empiricism can do no justice in exact terms. But if one does pull the strings within the engine of the universe, the consequences are underneath all perceptible action, in long term patterns of meaning-evokation. Life comes to serve, apply to the narrative that the ritual act establishes. This narrative is established indirectly, revolving, like a story with a beginning and a return to the beginning (an ending), around something. In many cases, around a God. Always around the symbol of a solution to a problem that rational consciousness as we know it poses. The idea of reason (not reason itself, but its image of itself) has arisen as an aberration as a consequence of the inability for the newly arisen capacity to reflect to include in its reflections its reflecting, thereby positing, in panic, a "He that is I", a "person", about whom we (including this person) may think. Man gave up his existential power by inventing himself as from outside, and all his ambition is caused by his socially repressed will to judge locally instead of universally. Ambition can only be quenched in man by positing the problem in the proper terms - the inherent logic of all 'existential problems' (contradictions due to missing terms) - the terms of its completion as negation.

Then, man begins to be the animal as god, in a society of animal-gods - bound only by law of superior value. No precedent means no prior law, law for lower than precedent - only the non-excellent is bound by law, thereby becoming undesirable. This is how the ani,al kingdom works and not the human one. We are protected by our most excellent tools from the excellence of our others. Our greatest tools include the other in our own sphere of excellence - but our laws exclude the excellence of others to challenge our comfort. The true bipolarity of evolution is comfort versus excellence. These two positive modes of existence are what drives us as a species to become more advanced. Discomfort and uselessness being their compliment twin, and Dionysus as the eternal constant of "positive flux", the tense current in which all is assembled, especially the exaltedly destroying, the stylistic Shiva which we all adore as the excellent culmination of all will to comfort. The aim from here, this state of dread-awe, is to arrive at a simple comfortable excellence. In other words, we are now children and servants of our mind, thinking capacity, and the aim is to father this capacity to an adulthood, which means a not wanting to comprehend all that is apprehended.

Until a reasoning stops believing in itself as absolute criterium for not only itself, but all that it is not as well, until it wakes up from its absurd claiming - (The human brain is as large as it is because of the survival of the gene causing a weakened jaw muscle in apes, which gives more space within the skull and allows for more brains. The Jaw clenching impulse survived (the will to survive survived), now as part of the extra brains. Reason still is this clenching.) - we shall revolve around temporary solutions, symptom-solving. The cause of our anxiety is not the fact that there is something wrong with us, but in this jaw-clenching, this perpetuated biting-into, the notion of the self has been forged problematically.

The notion of self requires a God who is also a self. But the self is not existent apart from its local perspective. To revolve around something other than a universal, this has always been the method whereby lives were lived well. To chant around a fire to bring wealth to the tribe is a true experience. To go into a church and stare in awe at the image of the unsurpassable is the sensation of de-experiencing, letting go of the notion of self by means of oblivion, dissolution of force. It works and makes man placide. But a seed of the clenching survives and sticks to the most miserable residu, safely enclosed in its own pitifulness, unapproachable to reasonable appeals to its non existence, the self-valuing below the threshold of "mercy" or "expanse" - ever driven inward and surviving there until "hell" or "the real" catches up in "judgment say". This is why if one is religious, one does well to constantly stride forward to serve fellow men. Not because religion enables it, this giving spirit, but because it offers a choice - either give or become utterly loathsome. But what to give? Why not the gift of religion? But let us decypher our consciousness a little bit further, for now, and allow for the concepts of universality and external cause to un-follow, to relinquish their rights as consequence of what we know - there exists something beyond our rational power.

Quote :

There used to be this little Spongebob figurine lying around my house somewhere. I think it came from a happy meal. That is basically a little statue. According to you, because man has made Spongebob statues, Spongebob must exist. There is literally no other reason for a Spongebob figurine/statue to exist besides the fact that men met and interacted with a Sponge with legs that could talk and walk around.

do you know everything? do you know for sure that in this big and vast universe there is no sponge that could talk and walk and have life? have you tested all the sponges that could be found in this big vast universe? if you say that there is no talking sponge in the known part of the universe, what is the guarantee that one could not be found in the unknown part of the universe?

Quote :

I'm sorry, but this thread is one of the dumbest threads I have ever seen on the internet. I need to go take a shower just to feel right again after having posted in it. Not to get clean, no, but rather because I need to jerk off to the thought of the 15 year old girl who lives next door to me so that I can feel dirty and ashamed of myself, because that shame would actually be a more pleasant feeling than the one I have after having posted in this thread.

i am sorry too but i am talking to a person who is like the frog in the well trying to measure the sea. you better jerk off because people like you are just capable of masturbation rather than an intelligent discussion. thank you.

Says the guy who believes in Spongebob. You have to be fucking kidding me. I'm going to go pop some painkillers and forget that you fucking exist. I hate fucking idiots, but I hate idiots who think they're intelligent especially. This is what you call intellectual discussion? Debating rather or not Spongebob exists? Really? Oh Jesus God in Heaven take me now.


Motherfucker you've been here for like two days and made all of four posts. I've been here since the beginning of this site. Some of the longest running threads were started by me. And you are telling me I don't contribute and you do? You stupid fuck, you have officially aggravated me.


Most people on this site are and will continue being nice to you, but you're a moron, and in addition to that I have been able to ascertain that you're also a fucking douchebag. I have absolutely no motivation to be nice to you. This is a stupid fucking thread. That's an objective fact. You could have posted it anywhere on the internet but you chose to make us all look like assholes by posting it on this forum. Take your bullshit and leave, or failing that, learn how to take a fucking joke and shut the fuck up when someone like me says something to irritate you.

while it may be possible that a walking sponge exists somewhere in the unknown universe... that still doesn't mean that that thing is what influenced the idea of a walking sponge... in other words there can exist an idea without it being influenced directly by the thing that is the idea... you are basically using Descartes argument for the god, it went something like that the infinite (god) must exist for how else did we come up with the infinite?... the best argument against this is that we come up with ideas by means of combination of things that yes do exist... even though that combination really doesn't. for example legs and sponges do exist if you combine the ideas you get a sponge with legs even though we have not witnessed such. A simply example of something that does not exist even though we can come up with the idea is this: " a thing that does not exist" how did i think of that without witnessing or being influenced by an existing thing-that-does-not-exist?

Second of all, this whole fake humility, like we're going to be hesitant about making assertions we know are true (Like spongebob doesn't fucking exist) just in respect of human fallibility or whatever... Yeah, I see this in a lot of people, all over the place. It makes me quite sick to my stomach to be honest. That isn't what philosophy is about. Philosophy is about asking questions and giving answers, and that attitude of fake humility gets in the way of this process. Have the courage to be wrong. Don't just avoid the problem of being wrong by skirting the truth with this fake humility.

Parodites wrote:

Second of all, this whole fake humility, like we're going to be hesitant about making assertions we know are true (Like spongebob doesn't fucking exist) just in respect of human fallibility or whatever... Yeah, I see this in a lot of people, all over the place. It makes me quite sick to my stomach to be honest. That isn't what philosophy is about. Philosophy is about asking questions and giving answers, and that attitude of fake humility gets in the way of this process. Have the courage to be wrong. Don't just avoid the problem of being wrong by skirting the truth with this fake humility.

Ain't fake man... i mean i was being honest. a sponge with legs may exist somewhere out there... i kinda doubt it but hey...

the best way to get a point across to someone is not necessarily to through rocks.

Quote :

Oh Jesus God in Heaven take me now.

oh so you believe in jesus christ, a mortal man who claim to be the son of god. you know my gods can be identified as not a human but something different from human being. your jesus christ is a fucking liar who fuck the entire humanity for a century. you fuckerhead liar.

Quote :

Motherfucker you've been here for like two days and made all of four posts. I've been here since the beginning of this site. Some of the longest running threads were started by me. And you are telling me I don't contribute and you do? You stupid fuck, you have officially aggravated me.

yes your thread last longer because people like you exist in this forum in large number. that doesn't make you any better person.

Quote :

Most people on this site are and will continue being nice to you, but you're a moron, and in addition to that I have been able to ascertain that you're also a fucking douchebag. I have absolutely no motivation to be nice to you. This is a stupid fucking thread. That's an objective fact. You could have posted it anywhere on the internet but you chose to make us all look like assholes by posting it on this forum. Take your bullshit and leave, or failing that, learn how to take a fucking joke and shut the fuck up when someone like me says something to irritate you.

look you motherfucker asshole, i don't you in this thread. who invite you here. if you don't like the discussion, get your ass off here. i don't want dumber like you interrupting my wise discussion.

Parodites' point is that Spongebob was not created because someone saw a walking, talking sponge. We know this. Spongebob was created through imagination, because we humans are able to imagine things which do not have a literal, factual existence. The argument that "there might be a walking, talking sponge somewhere, you have not observed every sponge in existence!!" is irrelevant here. His other point also stands: have the courage to be wrong, to take a stand, to make a judgment and proceed from there.

The next point is, obviously, that God, along with all the statues which men have created of God, are just as easily seen as products of human imagination. There is no need to think, "Well if this statue or idea of God exists, there must probably be some actual thing to which these correspond." No. The "actual content" which is the source of ideas of God is human experience, emotions, reason, language, and our entire manner of confronting a finite, limited and often "cruel" existence. Our finitude is the source of our ideas of God, as well as all the various utilities, psychological and social, which stem from this sort of belief.

If you wish to argue that we should not posit the truth of the imaginary nature of "God" because we have not "seen everything yet" and because it is theoretically possible that this God might exist, well... that is an entirely separate argument. Of course what is possible is never ruled out entirely. But we are not proceeding upon possibility, we are proceeding here upon necessity and rational judgment. This is what reason is: submitting possibility to necessity, developing each to the full and then conditioning, situating the former with respect to the latter. There is a lot of reason to think that these "gods", of which there have been countless and contradicting versions throughout human history (the present typical ideas of God are just a myopic, historical snapshot of the god-concept) are human fabrications, and no reason to think otherwise. Of course there are many reasons people have to want to think otherwise, but these only strengthen the idea of the fabricated god, the human idea.

There is also this point: that accepting the fabricated, imaginary-created nature of god is the beginning of developing the capacity for thinking. Literal belief in god was perhaps more useful and necessary in the past, but no longer does it play a developmental role save very early on, in the childhood of our "thinking". Learning to think requires one be able to relegate this belief in the literal existence of god, as well as all need for such belief, to irrelevancy.

And Jesus Christ, the way I used it, is a common expression. I don't believe in God. I don't believe in Jesus.


And this, this is just gold:



"look you motherfucker asshole, i don't you in this thread. who invite you here. if you don't like the discussion, get your ass off here. i don't want dumber like you interrupting my wise discussion."



You insult and curse about as well as an Indian, speak English about as well as a China-man, and you believe in Spongebob. I think my work here is done. Your "wise discussion" isn't worth one of my turds. Arrogance and idiocy don't go well together my friend. You should have just taken what I said before and moved on, because I have trouble ignoring big mouthed fucking idiots who insist on directing their bullshit at me.

ok lets consider that these statues are imaginary created by men. but the question is why do you think they are imaginary?

if the answer is that you never saw them, then by the same link of logic you can dismiss napolean, carl marx, queen mary antoniatte and many more whom neither you nor your generation have ever seen.

you can bring your spongebob analogy in those cases also. you may say that since spongbob is a human creation so are napolean, carl marx, queen mary antoniatte etc.

if you say documentary and real evidences exists in case of napolean, carl marx, queen mary antoniatte etc. , the same documentary and real evidence exists in case of egyptian and greek gods too.you can see their temples as clearly as you can see the palace of napolean.

so why napolean is real and egyptian and greek gods are imaginary?

please give reasons.

xxx200 wrote:

ok lets consider that these statues are imaginary created by men. but the question is why do you think they are imaginary?

if the answer is that you never saw them, then by the same link of logic you can dismiss napolean, carl marx, queen mary antoniatte and many more whom neither you nor your generation have ever seen.

you can bring your spongebob analogy in those cases also. you may say that since spongbob is a human creation so are napolean, carl marx, queen mary antoniatte etc.

if you say documentary and real evidences exists in case of napolean, carl marx, queen mary antoniatte etc. , the same documentary and real evidence exists in case of egyptian and greek gods too.you can see their temples as clearly as you can see the palace of napolean.

so why napolean is real and egyptian and greek gods are imaginary?

please give reasons.

Purhaps the statues are modeled after people, they don't have to be modled after actual gods to be called statues of gods... kimg jung il or the old leader of North korea has stautes and they think of him as a god... let stories like that last long enough and you get the myths we have today wouldn't you?

Abstract wrote:

xxx200 wrote:

ok lets consider that these statues are imaginary created by men. but the question is why do you think they are imaginary?

if the answer is that you never saw them, then by the same link of logic you can dismiss napolean, carl marx, queen mary antoniatte and many more whom neither you nor your generation have ever seen.

you can bring your spongebob analogy in those cases also. you may say that since spongbob is a human creation so are napolean, carl marx, queen mary antoniatte etc.

if you say documentary and real evidences exists in case of napolean, carl marx, queen mary antoniatte etc. , the same documentary and real evidence exists in case of egyptian and greek gods too.you can see their temples as clearly as you can see the palace of napolean.

so why napolean is real and egyptian and greek gods are imaginary?

please give reasons.

Purhaps the statues are modeled after people, they don't have to be modled after actual gods to be called statues of gods... kimg jung il or the old leader of North korea has stautes and they think of him as a god... let stories like that last long enough and you get the myths we have today wouldn't you?

my point is that the statues are modeled after real creatures. they cannot be ordinary fellow because then nobody will worship them. they cannot be the leader of the nations because they don't look like a human being and their activities as written in scripture cannot be performed by ordinary human being. kim jung ill looks like an ordinary human being and his activities can also be performed by ordinary human being.

I find the depiction of Zeus as physichaly strong in a human way offensive.

This mother fucker commands lightning.