|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 3, 2021 7:59:51 GMT
Here's a couple of his famous quotes:
«If an ox could paint a picture, his god would look like an ox»
«But if cattle and horses and lions had hands
or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do, horses like horses and cattle like cattle also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies of such a sort as the form they themselves have»What'd ya think about that? Do you agree with it? |
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Aug 3, 2021 15:35:00 GMT
Here's a couple of his famous quotes:
«If an ox could paint a picture, his god would look like an ox»
«But if cattle and horses and lions had hands
or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do, horses like horses and cattle like cattle also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies of such a sort as the form they themselves have»What'd ya think about that? Do you agree with it? Such quotes have been summarized into "men make their gods in their own image". This is certainly true, since, as Greek mythology shows, the gods are entirely anthropomorphic, except for their superior powers. The gods are conceived in terms of the language that developed in reference to humans. Animals don't have gods precisely because they do not have a language about themselves. Xenophanes was right, and he could have added: If a god thought that he produced man, he would say that he produced man in his own image, including being either a male or a female. |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Aug 3, 2021 15:49:25 GMT
To project human form upon God is an example of how many religious people need something tangible, rather than abstract, to believe in. This is why relics were to popular in the middle ages, why the Catholic church practice communion, and why the new testament emphasizes so strongly the supposed miracles by Jesus. But the belief in God may also start as an abstraction, where God is assumed to have all the qualities we like about ourselves. God is never malignant and never weak. And then the question is whether this abstraction also represents something that is real; A conscious divine being. That's a matter of faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Aug 3, 2021 16:01:42 GMT
Well I have not visited India, but I am lead to believe
that there are no Indians with the heads of elephants,
nor are there blue-skinned people, nor are there
folk with countless numbers of arms.
So, the answer is: no.
But sometimes it is true,
in young and naive cultures.
Typically those who reject older cultures
as being wrong for being diverse and interesting.
And a little but confusing to their little minds.
I am the Hairy Krishna!
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Aug 3, 2021 20:17:16 GMT
Here's a couple of his famous quotes:
«If an ox could paint a picture, his god would look like an ox»
«But if cattle and horses and lions had hands
or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do, horses like horses and cattle like cattle also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies of such a sort as the form they themselves have»What'd ya think about that? Do you agree with it? Such quotes have been summarized into "men make their gods in their own image". This is certainly true, since, as Greek mythology shows, the gods are entirely anthropomorphic, except for their superior powers. The gods are conceived in terms of the language that developed in reference to humans. Animals don't have gods precisely because they do not have a language about themselves. Xenophanes was right, and he could have added: If a god thought that he produced man, he would say that he produced man in his own image, including being either a male or a female. Due corrections: The gods are usually anthropomorphic, except for their superior powers AND immortality. Of course, signs of grandeur are added to them, such as many arms [great strength], ... In the final stage of myth-making, the Christian God was given all the attributes of the Eleatic "Being", namely eternity and infinity, and Aquinas concluded with "God is the act of being" [actus essendi], which goes infinitely beyond anthropomorphism or implicitly reduces "God" from an alleged substance to the existing of whatever exists. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 3, 2021 21:07:49 GMT
I'm glad there are so deep, and profound, and especially - the various - answers come. I apologize for no answer right now, I've got not a good headache. Can't focuse my thoughts.
It's really pleasant and worth to be surrounded by talented, unique, and wise persons. There's the happiness begins.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Aug 3, 2021 22:13:21 GMT
Consider this hypothesis.
1 million years from now human science will have evolved to
the point where we can actually fabricate an entire universe.
We can extract the essence of our own being and seed this
new universe with that essence such that it can incarnate
into the life-forms in that universe.
What shape will those life-forms take? Well, we are comfortable
with our current shapes. But maybe we want wings and gills,
or many arms - or all of those in various life-times.
But we lose our memories of this past universe, and can only
infer from logic and math that such must have existed.
Now consider that this IS actually the universe we are in now
and that it was made in a similar form to the previous universe.
Yes, in such a scenario the highest forms we can find will
likely resemble in many ways the original form of the creators.
Perhaps 1 million years from now, we will have reduced the
number of bodies just to 1 single body in which all our
minds reside. We do this to concentrate the thinking power
of all those minds, so that we can actually compute how
this new universe will operate.
Will our new god-body be similar to our human bodies?
It does not have to be. But its most likely going
to be easier for us to operate if we are familiar
with its human form.
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Aug 4, 2021 16:50:08 GMT
Consider this hypothesis. 1 million years from now human science will have evolved to the point where we can actually fabricate an entire universe. We can extract the essence of our own being and seed this new universe with that essence such that it can incarnate into the life-forms in that universe. What shape will those life-forms take? Well, we are comfortable with our current shapes. But maybe we want wings and gills, or many arms - or all of those in various life-times. But we lose our memories of this past universe, and can only infer from logic and math that such must have existed. Now consider that this IS actually the universe we are in now and that it was made in a similar form to the previous universe. Yes, in such a scenario the highest forms we can find will likely resemble in many ways the original form of the creators. Perhaps 1 million years from now, we will have reduced the number of bodies just to 1 single body in which all our minds reside. We do this to concentrate the thinking power of all those minds, so that we can actually compute how this new universe will operate. Will our new god-body be similar to our human bodies? It does not have to be. But its most likely going to be easier for us to operate if we are familiar with its human form.
We live in a time bubble of about 400 years, where we've gone from the technology of the middle ages to building spacecraft and quantum computers. This has given humanity what I consider to be the illusion of the never-ending exponential technological development. I think the curve is asymptotic, not exponential. But if I'm wrong, and humanity starts developing godlike powers, it will be sure to destroy itself long before one million years have passed. We're already approaching the point of Frankenstein researchers wanting to genetically design the next generations. I see that as a bigger threat to humanity than the threat of nuclear war.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Aug 4, 2021 17:01:32 GMT
Here's a couple of his famous quotes:
«If an ox could paint a picture, his god would look like an ox»
«But if cattle and horses and lions had hands
or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do, horses like horses and cattle like cattle also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies of such a sort as the form they themselves have»What'd ya think about that? Do you agree with it? The ruling class creates a god that reflects what it wants its subjects to believe in. The Greek theos is related to theater. |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Aug 4, 2021 17:09:06 GMT
Consider this hypothesis. 1 million years from now human science will have evolved to the point where we can actually fabricate an entire universe. We can extract the essence of our own being and seed this new universe with that essence such that it can incarnate into the life-forms in that universe. What shape will those life-forms take? Well, we are comfortable with our current shapes. But maybe we want wings and gills, or many arms - or all of those in various life-times. But we lose our memories of this past universe, and can only infer from logic and math that such must have existed. Now consider that this IS actually the universe we are in now and that it was made in a similar form to the previous universe. Yes, in such a scenario the highest forms we can find will likely resemble in many ways the original form of the creators. Perhaps 1 million years from now, we will have reduced the number of bodies just to 1 single body in which all our minds reside. We do this to concentrate the thinking power of all those minds, so that we can actually compute how this new universe will operate. Will our new god-body be similar to our human bodies? It does not have to be. But its most likely going to be easier for us to operate if we are familiar with its human form.
But if I'm wrong, and humanity starts developing godlike powers, it will be sure to destroy itself long before one million years have passed. We're already approaching the point of Frankenstein researchers wanting to genetically design the next generations. I see that as a bigger threat to humanity than the threat of nuclear war.
Science fiction is never scientific. Its motivation is sensationalism, especially passive and pessimistic scare stories, and has no use for truth or optimistic inspiration. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Aug 4, 2021 20:47:15 GMT
Consider this hypothesis. 1 million years from now human science will have evolved to the point where we can actually fabricate an entire universe. We can extract the essence of our own being and seed this new universe with that essence such that it can incarnate into the life-forms in that universe. What shape will those life-forms take? Well, we are comfortable with our current shapes. But maybe we want wings and gills, or many arms - or all of those in various life-times. But we lose our memories of this past universe, and can only infer from logic and math that such must have existed. Now consider that this IS actually the universe we are in now and that it was made in a similar form to the previous universe. Yes, in such a scenario the highest forms we can find will likely resemble in many ways the original form of the creators. Perhaps 1 million years from now, we will have reduced the number of bodies just to 1 single body in which all our minds reside. We do this to concentrate the thinking power of all those minds, so that we can actually compute how this new universe will operate. Will our new god-body be similar to our human bodies? It does not have to be. But its most likely going to be easier for us to operate if we are familiar with its human form.
We live in a time bubble of about 400 years, where we've gone from the technology of the middle ages to building spacecraft and quantum computers. This has given humanity what I consider to be the illusion of the never-ending exponential technological development. I think the curve is asymptotic, not exponential. But if I'm wrong, and humanity starts developing godlike powers, it will be sure to destroy itself long before one million years have passed. We're already approaching the point of Frankenstein researchers wanting to genetically design the next generations. I see that as a bigger threat to humanity than the threat of nuclear war.
I see no evidence that quantum computers are anything more than a ponzi scheme based on baffle-with-bullshit.
The tech-spike you speak of is real, and it may well slow are even go backwards before it picks up again, but information is just so widespread that it would take a comet or giant meteor impact to genuinely retard humanity for any significant time - that is the real genuine threat.
The current Frankenstein researchers are mostly also just a baffle-with-bullshit ponzi scheme, but it is based on the
notion of breeding for traits; which has been going on at pace
for at least 200 years - that is how strawberries originated. The notion itself goes back to biblical times at least.
What the so-called gene-splicing really does is little different except they lie and pretend its more advanced because if they do not do that, then they are not allocated funding. They even tried to rope me into their scheme in the late 90's when the craze started with the farce of dolly the sheep, who is just a sheep same as any sheep except it has arthritis.
The current mania around the cult of quackery called
'coroners virus' or perhaps better known as 'croney virus' is just another mundane scam perpetuated by the chinese government to make you all into its slaves. Its own ridiculous profit margin that has allowed them to do this is based on slave
labor the like of which has not been seen since the 1940s.
Nukes are a big threat. But even if 90% of humanity got wiped out, it could recover within a century unless nuclear war triggers an ice-age. But even then we have breached the information curve.
Unless the doomsday meteor strikes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 5, 2021 11:18:35 GMT
I agree with joustos at the point that he said that we shouldn't think about - only one and the right one image that is being copied by us in our worshipping... - I mean that we should pay attention to what features and corners of our imagining it takes. I agree with karl at the point that he sharply said that people needed in something real that was being represented in us (we could find in it; for instance, love or brotherhood), but it was mostly in divine deities. So, yes, that might be that one and the only reason. I agree with jonbain at the point that he said that it could be only our thoughts that the divine deities looked like we were, while it could be some the mirror effect (that occurs in formalizations often). That's why we shouldn't be so rigorous at our own thinking of ourselves. I can also agree with thesageofmainstreet in that he said that this projection might be what the running class wanted us to see. I mean that it happened not rarely that we're being convinced in that "there are some deities, and you must listen to them, so, listen to us!"... |
|
