Este nevoie de BOR? De ce sunt ateu?

[gn77b]

PS e prescurtare pt. "post scriptum". Post scriptum la ce, ca ai inceput postarea direct cu PS?

pt. ca am postat imediat dupa postul precedent (ceea ce le uneste automat) dar nu ma asteptam sa postezi asa de repede (eh, nu mi-am dat seama ca te-ai enervat si stai lipit de PC ).

trebuia sa stai si tu cu golanii prin gimnaziu, poate invatai sa faci un misto cum trebuie gata, bye.

Editat Septembrie 20, 2013 de gn77b

[Vizitator Walhaz]

pt. ca am postat imediat dupa postul precedent (ceea ce le uneste automat) dar nu ma asteptam sa postezi asa de repede (eh, nu mi-am dat seama ca te-ai enervat si stai lipit de PC ).

trebuia sa stai si tu cu golanii prin gimnaziu, poate invatai sa faci un misto cum trebuie gata, bye.

 

Ei, sunt pistolero de profesie. Scriu mai repede decat propria-mi umbra.

 

N-ai tu, copile, cum ma enerva. Nu, la mine ploua marunt si plec abia mai tarziu de acasa.

 

E adevarat: n-am stat niciodata cu golanii, cu toate ca am stiut destui. Preferam si atunci sa citesc.

[-geronimo-]

E adevarat: n-am stat niciodata cu golanii, cu toate ca am stiut destui.

 

e bine, ca altfel ai fi mers si acum cracanat

[Vizitator Walhaz]

Ca sa nu deviem de la subiect, propun un test:

 

Rog toti ateii sa enumere religiile pe care le cunosc (fara google) si sa incerce sa le descrie.

 

Nu de altceva, dar sa stie si ceilalti cam cat de informati sunt ateii, referitor la ceea ce contesta cu atata vehementa.

 

Doi, trei si...

e bine, ca altfel ai fi mers si acum cracanat

 

(Homo)sexualcentric, sau ce-mi esti?

 

Daca vrei, iti fac cunosctinta cu golanii cunoscuti de mine si vedem cum mergi tu, cumetre. Ce zici? Vrei?

 

Mai bine ramai la subiect, zic eu.

 

 

 

Din "Visnu Purana" (cu explicatii in paranteze):

 

"Outcasts and barbarians will be masters of the banks of the Indus, Darvika, the Chandrabhaga and Kashmir. These will all be contemporary rulers [of this age] reigning over the earth: kings [rulers] of violent temper.....They will seize upon the property of their subjects; they will be of limited power and will for the most part rapidly rise and fall; their lives will be short, their desires insatiable, and they will display but little piety. The people of various countries intermingling with them will follow their example.....The prevailing caste will be the Shudra.....Vaisyas will abandon agriculture and commerce and gain a livelihood by servitude or the exercise of mechanical arts [proletarization and industrialization].....Kshyatrias instead of protecting will plunder their subjects: and under the pretext of levying customs will rob merchants of their property [crisis of capitalism and of private property; socialization, nationalization, and communism].....Wealth [inner] and piety [following one's dharma] will decrease day by day until the whole world will be wholly depraved. Then property alone will confer rank [the quantity of dollars - economic classes]; wealth [material] will be the only source of devotion; passion will be the sole bond of union between the sexes; falsehood will be the only means of success in litigation..... Earth will be venerated but for its mineral treasures [unscrupulous exploitation of the soil, demise of the cult of the earth]..... Brahmanical clothes will constitute a Brahman.....weakness will be the cause of dependence [cowardice, death of fides and honor in the modern political forms].....simple ablution [devoid of the power of the true rite] will be purification [can there really be anything more in the alleged salvation procured in the Christian sacraments?]..... In the Kali age men corrupted by unbelievers...will say: "Of what authority are the Vedas? What are gods or Brahmans?....." Observance of caste, order and institutes [traditional] will not prevail in the Kali age. Marriages in this age will not be conformable to the ritual, nor will the rules which connect the preceptor and his disciple be in force.....A regenerated man will be initiated in any way whatever [democracy applied to the spiritual plain] and such acts of penance as may be performed will be unattended by any results [this refers to a "humanistic" and conformist religion].....all orders of life will be common alike to all persons..... He who gives away much money will be the master of men and family descent will no longer be a title of supremacy [the end of traditional nobility, advent of bourgeoisie, plutocracy]..... Men will fix their desires upon riches, even though dishonestly acquired.....Men of all degrees will conceit themselves to be equal with Brahmans [the prevarication and presumption of the intellectuals and modern culture].....The people will be almost always in dread of dearth and apprehensive of scarcity; and will hence ever be watching the appearances of the sky [the meaning of the religious and superstitious residues typical of modern masses]..... The women will pay no attention to the commands of their husbands or parents.....They will be selfish, abject and slatternly; they will be scolds and liars; they will be indecent and immoral in their conduct and will ever attach themselves to dissolute men..... Men having deviated into heresy, iniquity will flourish."

 

 

"On the Secret of Degeneration" By Julius Evola

 

"Anyone who has come to reject the rationalist myth of "progress" and the interpretation of history as an unbroken positive development of mankind will find himself gradually drawn towards the world-view that was common to all the great traditional cultures, and which had at its centre the memory of a process of degeneration, slow obscuration, or collapse of a higher preceding world. As we penetrate deeper into this new (and old) interpretation, we encounter various problems, foremost among which is the question of the secret of degeneration. In its literal sense, this question is by no means a novel one. While contemplating the magnificent remains of cultures whose very name has not even come down to us, but which seem to have conveyed, even in their physical material, a greatness and power that is more than earthly, scarcely anyone has failed to ask themselves questions about the death of cultures, and sensed the inadequacy of the reasons that are usually given to explain it. We can thank the Comte de Gobineau for the best and best-known summary of this problem, and also for a masterly criticism of the main hypotheses about it. His solution on the basis of racial thought and racial purity also has a lot of truth in it, but it needs to be expanded by a few observations concerning a higher order of things. For there have been many cases in which a culture has collapsed even when its race has remained pure, as is especially clear in certain groups that have suffered slow, inexorable extinction despite remaining as racially isolated as if they were islands. An example quite close at hand is the case of the Swedes and the Dutch. These people are in the same racial condition today as they were two centuries ago, but there is little to be found now of the heroic disposition and the racial awareness that they once possessed. Other great cultures seem merely to have remained standing in the condition of mummies: they have long been inwardly dead, so that it takes only the slightest push to knock them down. This was the case, for example, with ancient Peru, that giant solar empire which was annihilated by a few adventurers drawn from the worst rabble of Europe. If we look at the secret of degeneration from the exclusively traditional point of view, it becomes even harder to solve it completely. It is then a matter of the division of all cultures into two main types. On the one hand there are the traditional cultures, whose principle is identical and unchangeable, despite all the differences evident on the surface. The axis of these cultures and the summit of their hierarchical order consists of metaphysical, supra-individual powers and actions, which serve to inform and justify everything that is merely human, temporal, subject to becoming and to "history." On the other hand there is "modern culture," which is actually the anti-tradition and which exhausts itself in a construction of purely human and earthly conditions and in the total development of these, in pursuit of a life entirely detached from the "higher world." From the standpoint of the latter, the whole of history is degeneration, because it shows the universal decline of earlier cultures of the traditional type, and the decisive and violent rise of a new universal civilization of the "modern" type. A double question arises from this. First, how was it ever possible for this to come to pass? There is a logical error underlying the whole doctrine of evolution: it is impossible that the higher can emerge from the lower, and the greater from the less. But doesn't a similar difficulty face us in the solution of the doctrine of involution? How is it ever possible for the higher to fall? If we could make do with simple analogies, it would be easy to deal with this question. A healthy man can become sick; a virtuous one can turn to vice. There is a natural law that everyone takes from granted: that every living being starts with birth, growth, and strength, then come old age, weakening, and disintegration. And so forth. But this is just making statements, not explaining, even if we allow that such analogies actually relate to the question posed here. Secondly, it is not only a matter of explaining the possibility of the degeneration of a particular cultural world, but also the possibility that the degeneration of one cultural cycle may pass to other peoples and take them down with it. For example, we have not only to explain how the ancient Western reality collapsed, but also have to show the reason why it was possible for "modern" culture to conquer practically the whole world, and why it possessed the power to divert so many peoples from any other type of culture, and to hold sway even where states of a traditional kind seemed to be alive (one need only recall the Aryan East). In this respect, it is not enough to say that we are dealing with a purely material and economic conquest. That view seems very superficial, for two reasons. In the first place, a land that is conquered on the material level also experiences, in the long run, influences of a higher kind corresponding to the cultural type of its conqueror. We can state, in fact, that European conquest almost everywhere sows the seeds of "Europeanization," i.e., the "modern" rationalist, tradition-hostile, individualistic way of thinking. Secondly, the traditional conception of culture and the state is hierarchical, not dualistic. Its bearers could never subscribe, without severe reservations, to the principles of "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" and "My kingdom is not of this world." For us, "Tradition" is the victorious and creative presence in the world of that which is "not of this world," i.e., of the Spirit, understood as a power that is mightier than any merely human or material one. This is a basic idea of the authentically traditional view of life, which does not permit us to speak with contempt of merely material conquests. On the contrary, the material conquest is the sign, if not of a spiritual victory, at least of a spiritual weakness or a kind of spiritual "retreat" in the cultures that are conquered and lose their independence. Everywhere that the Spirit, regarded as the stronger power, was truly present, it never lacked for means - visible or otherwise - to enable all the opponent's technical and material superiority to be resisted. But this has not happened. It must be concluded, then, that degeneracy was lurking behind the traditional facade of every people that the "modern" world has been able to conquer. The West must then have been the culture in which a crisis that was already universal assumed its acutest form. There the degeneration amounted, so to speak, to a knockout blow, and as it took effect, it brought down with more or less ease other peoples in whom the involution had certainly not "progressed" as far, but whose tradition had already lost its original power, so that these peoples were no longer able to protect themselves from an outside assault. With these considerations, the second aspect of our problem is traced back to the first one. It is mainly a question of explicating the meaning and the possibility of degeneracy, without reference to other circumstances. For this we must be clear about one thing: it is an error to assume that the hierarchy of the traditional world is based on a tyranny of the upper classes. That is merely a "modern" conception, completely alien to the traditional way of thinking. The traditional doctrine in fact conceived of spiritual action as an "action without acting"; it spoke of the "unmoved mover"; everywhere it used the symbolism of the "pole," the unalterable axis around which every ordered movement takes place (and elsewhere we have shown that this is the meaning of the swastika, the "arctic cross"); it always stressed the "Olympian," spirituality, and genuine authority, as well as its way of acting directly on its subordinates, not through violence but through "presence"; finally, it used the simile of the magnet, wherein lies the key to our question, as we shall now see. Only today could anyone imagine that the authentic bearers of the Spirit, or of Tradition, pursue people so as to seize them and put them in their places - in short, that they "manage" people, or have any personal interest in setting up and maintaining those hierarchical relationships by virtue of which they can appear visibly as the rulers. This would be ridiculous and senseless. It is much more the recognition on the part of the lower ones that is the true basis of any traditional ranking. It is not the higher that needs the lower, but the other way round. The essence of hierarchy is that there is something living as a reality in certain people, which in the rest is only present in the condition of an ideal, a premonition, an unfocused effort. Thus the latter are fatefully attracted to the former, and their lower condition is one of subordination less to something foreign, than to their own true "self." Herein lies the secret, in the traditional world, of all readiness for sacrifice, all heroism, all loyalty; and, on the other side, of a prestige, an authority, and a calm power which the most heavily-armed tyrant can never count upon. With these considerations, we have come very close to solving not only the problem of degeneration, but also the possibility of a particular fall. Are we perhaps not tired of hearing that the success of every revolution indicates the weakness and degeneracy of the previous rulers? An understanding of this kind is very one-sided. This would indeed be the case if wild dogs were tied up, and suddenly broke loose: that would be proof that the hands holding their leashes had become impotent or weak. But things are arranged very differently in the framework of spiritual ranking, whose real basis we have explained above. This hierarchy degenerates and is able to be overthrown in one case only: when the individual degenerates, when he uses his fundamental freedom to deny the Spirit, to cut his life loose from any higher reference-point, and to exist "only for himself." Then the contacts are fatefully broken, the metaphysical tension, to which the traditional organism owes its unity, gives way, every force wavers in its path and finally breaks free. The peaks, of course, remain pure and inviolable in their heights, but the rest, which depended on them, now becomes an avalanche, a mass that has lost its equilibrium and falls, at first imperceptibly but with ever accelerating movement down to the depths and lowest levels of the valley. This is the secret of every degeneration and revolution. The European had first slain the hierarchy in himself by extirpating his own inner possibilities, to which corresponded the basis of the order that he would then destroy externally. If Christian mythology attributes the Fall of Man and the Rebellion of the Angels to the freedom of the will, then it comes to much the same significance. It concerns the frightening potential that dwells in man of using freedom to destroy spiritually and to banish everything that could ensure him a supra-natural value. This is a metaphysical decision: the stream that traverses history in the most varied forms of the traditional-hating, revolutionary, individualistic, and humanistic spirit, or in short, the "modern" spirit. This decision is the only positive and decisive cause in the secret of degeneration, the destruction of Tradition. If we understand this, we can perhaps also grasp the sense of those legends that speak of mysterious rulers who "always" exist and have never died (shades of the Emperor sleeping beneath the Kyffhäuser mountain!). Such rulers can be rediscovered only when one achieves spiritual completeness and awakens a quality in oneself like that of a metal that suddenly feels "the magnet", finds the magnet and irresistibly orients itself and moves towards it. For now, we must restrict ourselves to this hint. A comprehensive explanation of legends of that sort, which come to us from the most ancient Aryan source, would take us too far. At another opportunity we will perhaps return to the secret of reconstruction, to the "magic" that is capable of restoring the fallen mass to the unalterable, lonely, and invisible peaks that are still there in the heights."

 

 

Bagati si un ochi aici, la pagina 213 capitolul 10: http://www.juliusevola.com/julius_evola/texts/MenAmongtheRuins.pdf

 

 

Macar atat sa cititi si, eventual, sa-i bagati o cugetare. Poate incepem asa sa ne intlegem.

Sper ca nu ma astept iarasi la prea mult.

Bafta si spor.

Editat Septembrie 20, 2013 de Walhaz

[B.B.]

Roadkil, cand vrea sa zica ca se duce la paine, spune asa:

 

"Daca nu ar fi aceasta nesuferita de zi ca oricare altele in care foamea, cea care ne duce pe noi toti spre moarte, moarte de care nimeni nu are scapare, as putea spune ca stau linistit, dar din pacate pentru a o potoli-o trebuie sa lipsesc cateva minute pretioase pentru a merge sa cumpar ceva de care avem toti nevoie, acest produs, de panificatie al carei radacini a fost de fapt descoperita de vechii filozofi egipteni cand le era si lor foame, acest produs fara de care lumea ar fi mai flamanda, o simpla .. paine."

[Vizitator Walhaz]

Bai, Bogdane, cu burta dupa paine ai plecat in "Spania", tot la paine-ti e gandul. Macar aici esti consecvent.

Chiar atat de rau platesc aia la "Aibiem"? Sa-ti trimit ajutoare?

In armata era o vorba cu moldovenii, ca-s permanent dupa mancare, dar chiar asa de rau sa fie n-am crezut niciodata.

Sa n-o iei pe coaja de la doamna, ca stai iarasi prea mult pe forum.

 

 

Back on topic: Nu citi, ca nu-i de tine, nefiind vorba de nici macar o paine.

 

Dar, pe langa paine, parca mai era ceva... Ah, da: panem et circenses! Le avem pe amantrei...

Editat Septembrie 20, 2013 de Walhaz

[B.B.]

Eu ma amuzam de faptul ca scrii extrem de alambicat ca sa pari inteligent, dar de fapt nu zici nimic.

 

Citeam mai devreme o postare de-a ta, ce-ai spus acolo mergea scris in maxim 6 cuvinte, tu ai scris vreo 6 fraze doar ca sa pari interesant.

[Vizitator Walhaz]

Eu ma amuzam de faptul ca scrii extrem de alambicat ca sa pari inteligent, dar de fapt nu zici nimic.

 

Citeam mai devreme o postare de-a ta, ce-ai spus acolo mergea scris in maxim 6 cuvinte, tu ai scris vreo 6 fraze doar ca sa pari interesant.

 

Nici chiar asa. Fiecare cuvant isi are rostul lui. Fiecare fraza isi are rostul ei. Nu le invinovati doar pt. ca nu le intelegi.

 

In afara de asta, vizibil si aici pe topic, ma doare la shtoi de ce crezi tu si altii ca sunt. Asadar nu simt nevoia sa par nimic. Tu si restul chiar ca vreti sa pareti multe, nefiind nimic. Si asta-i vizibil tot aici, pe topic si forum.

Mai ales cand faceti grup comun sunteti deliciosi.

 

Citeste, ramai on topic, sau da-te-n stamba. Your choice.

Editat Septembrie 20, 2013 de Walhaz

[Vizitator 9fingers]

Oricat, de alambicat, ar scrie, cand spune, ca filosofia, este o stiinta exacta, chiar cea mai exacta, dintre stiinte, nu mai conteaza, nimic.

[B.B.]

Oricat, de alambicat, ar scrie, cand spune, ca filosofia, este o stiinta exacta, chiar cea mai exacta, dintre stiinte, nu mai conteaza, nimic.

 

Probabil, stilul, asta, se cheama, scriind, oftand.

[zaelu]

frate... s-a inchis azi la farmacie?

[gn77b]

eu cred ca s-a enervat o idee daca a ajuns sa deschida topicul cu fascismul, sincer am crezut ca o sa fie cu ban, nici nu pricep de ce se complica Budd, avind in vedere ca e doar chestiune de timp. dar na, incurcate sint caile moderarii

 

Ca sa nu deviem de la subiect, propun un test:

 

Rog toti ateii sa enumere religiile pe care le cunosc (fara google) si sa incerce sa le descrie.

eu stiu de scientologie si amish dar nu le-am studiat. am trecut clasa?

Din "Visnu Purana" (cu explicatii in paranteze)

...

 

"On the Secret of Degeneration" By Julius Evola

...

 

 

Macar atat sa cititi si, eventual, sa-i bagati o cugetare. Poate incepem asa sa ne intlegem.

Sper ca nu ma astept iarasi la prea mult.

 

Bafta si spor.

tre' sa te simti mindru ca am citit in diagonala.

 

deci ai gasit niste scrieri profetice despre efectele tehnologizarii societatii. iaca fis. mi se pare destul de bun simt sa pui sub lupa acest fenomen si sa te intrebi daca nu cumva tehnologia a devenit un scop in sine, detasat de om sau cel putin daca nu pare sa manifeste tendinte de a fi asa in viitor.

insa corelarea acelor probleme cu departarea omului de metafizic and shit e doar in mintea autorilor alora. n-am observat sa demonstreze ceva, toarna asertiuni in speranta ca nimeni nu observa ca nu sint suportate de date concrete.

[zaelu]

totu tre sa fie facut de altii sau de zei.... pe planeta nimic nu se poate face se pare... nici macar o religie imbecila... nu... tre sa vie alienii sa ne porneasca virusul...

[Louis Cyphre]

totu tre sa fie facut de altii sau de zei.... pe planeta nimic nu se poate face se pare... nici macar o religie imbecila... nu... tre sa vie alienii sa ne porneasca virusul...

Pai ce vrei sa spui, ca Dumnezeu e pamantean?

Desi este atat de evident acest lucru, antropomorfizarea zeilor este atat de uzuala incat credinciosul scapa din vedere un lucru clar ca lumina zilei:

Dumnezeu NU este de pe Terra.

[zaelu]

 

E o ipoteza care se poate constitui intr-o explicatie simpla si logica pentru unele chestii.

Nu am dat cu parul. Mi-am exprimat o opinie de om aflat in epoca explorarilor spatiale.

 

Daca te uiti cu atentie la ce spui vei decoperi exact mecanismul prin care sint scorniti zeii:

 

"dar vai... io sint mic si doar am scornit o ipoteza... ce-am facuuut? N-am dat cu parul... mi-am exprimat o opinie de om aflat in epoca spiritualitatii... tot ceea ce propun este o explicatie a norilor de pe cer prin dorinta unor zei si venirea ploii prin numarul de sacrificii de virgine pe care le face cetatea noastra"

 

Intelegi? Nu e nevoie de nici un extraterestru pentru a explica cum le pocneste ideea unor primitivi prosti de a sacrifica capra vecinului ca sa aibe noroc la vinatoare imbunind zeul chizdii cu himen de fier.

 

Este atit de absurd asa ceva si la fel de "enervant" la fel cum auzi un copil ca incearca sa explice de ce zboara avioanele prin puterea zinei maselutza din basmul spus de ta-su cu o seara inainte.

 

 

Ezact cuum zice si Cyphre...mnezo nu e pamintean... specialistu e mereu din alt oras... nu se poate sa ploua din aburul de pe cer... sau existenta sa aibe fix sensul cel mai evident... ZERO... nu frate... tre sa scornim povesti cu mos craciuni cu capul oval.

Editat Septembrie 24, 2013 de zaelu

[zaelu]

Ba era un mare jmecher de asta... Buddha parca ii zicea care spunea asa: "Intrebarile prost puse nu au nici un raspuns".

 

1. Asa si?

2. Asa si?

3. Asa si?

4. Credem ca au parerea lor la fel de avizata ca si a noastra. Si chiar este la fel de avizata cu a noastra si cu opinia lu Hercule despre epilatu la 3.14zda a lu Afrodita.

 

Pe multi ca tine ii framinta tare de dot chestia asta... moama... daca exista extraterestri... moama daca viata pe Terra e de la extraterestri. Bai frate. In cvasi totalitatea cazurilor (asta ca sa le dau o sansa sa se indrepte pentru ca unii imi sint amici buni ) problemele astea a le lor se datoreaza intelegerii incomplete a teoriei evolutioniste si incapacitatii de dezbarare totala de virusul iluziei in zeitati celeste.

 

Cind vine Bula de Darwin sau Gigel de Dawkins si le explica ce mama dreacu vrea sa zica "evolutia" se uita ca curca in lemne. Asta e adevarul... imi pare rau... sint ingineri, sint doctori, sint cu 18 facultati (amicii astia ai mei cu problema asta) dar "efectiv" vizavi de problema asta... "izoelectrica" frate... EEGul e mort. De asemenea oricit s-ar chinui sa rationeze problema religiilor ca unica sursa dovedita si verificabila continuu ca "necredibila" a informatiei despre existenta zeitatilor, undeva cel putin in spatele fundaturii mintii lor inca zace saminta ofilita a virusului "zeului" tatic.

 

Cele doua chestii (incapacitatea intelegerii complete a evolutionismului si incapacitatea de scapare de virusul zeului) se ciocnesc exact cind vine vorba de rahatul asta cu extraterestrii.

 

De ce mortii ei sa ne chinuim sa intelegem ca avem explicatia perfect plauzibila si dovedibila a evolutiei vietii pe Pamint cu "mijloacele" aflate la dispozitia Pamintului cind putem sa indepartam nevoia asta de INTELEGERE de CUNOASTERE cu totul si sa facem un transfer de responsabilitate catre ceva care nu e ZEUL bunicului popa betiv si futangiu de vaduve ci ceva care sa fie la fel dar in acelasi timp sa ne puna intr-o lumina mai inteligenta... EXTRATERESTRII. Sursa cea mai neplauzibila si neverificabila a vietii pe Terra. Exact ca in proverbul cu datul vrabiei din mina pe cioara de pe gard.

 

Ma pish pe extraterestri!

 

Pe ei cine mortii lor i-a facut? Oh... mnezoul lor (ala extraterestru oricum al lu Cyphre )

 

Sau evolutia pe planeta lor?

 

Poate alti extraterestri?

 

Sint broaste testoase pina jos?

 

 

Oh... cumva intelegi ca nu are nici o importanta daca extraterestrii se plimbau pe vremea dinozaurilor pe Pamint? Sau daca are... importanta ar fi: De ce mama dreacu au plecat definitiv? Cumva datorita lipsei postului la maimutze si comportamentele lor sexuale cam promiscue?

Editat Septembrie 24, 2013 de zaelu

[Vizitator 9fingers]

@Zaelu si cine vrea sa imi raspunda:

 

Suntem singuri in Univers?

Exista civilizatii cu avans tehnologic fata de a noastra?

Existau asemenea civilizatii si in perioada in care noi eram in Epoca de Piatra?

Ce parere credeti ca au savantii de la ora actuala despre posibilitatea existentei unor asemenea civilizatii?

Cand te apuci de niste aprecieri vagi sau generice, din lipsa de probe, o faci plecand de la principiul parcimoniei maxime (lama lui occam cum este denumit popular).

Pornesti cu solutia care contine cel mai mic numar de presupuneri.

 

Da, cea mai plauzibila presupunere ar spune ca exista viata in nenumarate alte sisteme solare. In cateva din acele instante chiar viata inteligenta.

Religia a aparut in diverse locuri, in diverse forme destul de variate. Bazele doctrinelor religioase nu sunt deloc greu de patruns.

 

Si tu ce vrei sa faci?

Propui ideea ca intalnirea cu o civilizatie extraterestra a fost sursa unor mituri care au luat forma unor idei deosebit de primitive de a explica universul inconjurator.

O groaza de probleme care ar obliga la o imbraligatura de explicatii din ce in ce mai neversoimile deriva din presupunerile astea.

De ce a disparut acea civilizatie?

De ce nu a lasat niciun fel de urme?

De ce nu i-au invatat pe bastinasi niste adevaruri in locul povestilor infantile pe care au ajuns sa le construiasca?

Aveau si ei in istoria lor aceleasi genur ide mituri?

Si daca aveau, tot asa ar fi luat nastere?

 

Stiu, poti incropi tot felul de baseme pe baza acestor intrebari.

 

Dar incerc sa iti explic ca alegi o posibila solutie extrem de alambicata, evitand solutia naturala si la indemana oricui.

La fel procedeaza si cei care propun panspermia ca posibila origine a vietii pe pamant. E aceeasi poveste veche de cand lumea, cu epiciclurile lui Ptolemeu. In loc sa te gandesti ca orbitele nu descriu un cerc perfect, inventezi tot felul de artificii geometrice afundandu-te din ce in ce mai adanc in presupuneri.

[zaelu]

Propunerea ta e doar o incercare de a scapa de adevarul despre miturile alea. Anume ca sint niste ckackaturi. Daca ar proveni de la extraterestrii... moamaaaaaa moamaaaa ce pedigree le-ar da. Asta e tot ce visezi... un pedigree la basmele tale... il cauti cu infrigurare la alieni... succes!

 

Papa de la Roma se teme de extraterestri daca vin doar daca la intrebarea: "Ba l-ati intilnit pe mosu nostru cu barba printre stele?" ar raspunde: "Nu coaii..."

 

dar daca ar raspunde... "Noi sintem"... sau "Da si noi il cautam si v-am spus de el acu coispemii de ani"

 

Valeeeeu ce s-ar umfla pieptu lui de Papa... mama mama... nu i-ai mai ajunge la nas nici cu prajina.

 

 

Ba frate. Extraterestrii... ca si bibliile trebuiau sa specifice un singur lucru: Sapunul!!

 

Nu au facut-o. La fel si zeii... au pierdut timpul "biblii" intregi sa povesteasca cit de mare e ego-ul lor si cum trebuie linsi in koor. Zero info despre sapun, zero info despre boli in general, zero info despre roata, zero info despre cum sa nu iei gitul aproapelui pentru porcarii (in special porcarii legate de zei), zero zero zero. Dar... prin limbile calugarilor homosexuali obsedati sexual reprimati si psihotici... au scris "manuale" intregi despre datul la buci si pedepsele divine corespunzatoare actiunii.

Editat Septembrie 24, 2013 de zaelu

[B.B.]

 

 

Eugen, watching too much of this affects you in a bad way.

[Vizitator 9fingers]

A si apropos.

Era un pasaj prin biblie despre "sfantul" Ilie in care se spunea:

"sfantul Ilie s-a ridicat la cer cu un car de foc".

Cam asa?

 

 

Te iau in serios doar ca ca exemplific ideea de epicicluri.

 

Care (car de) foc?

Acum trebuie sa-ti imaginezi ca acea civilizatie superioara a venit aici cu rachete cu combustie externa (adica erau si ei la nivelul de "soarece"). Doar ca sa te agati de niste exercitii de imaginatie dintr-un basm...

Editat Septembrie 24, 2013 de 9fingers

[gn77b]

Eugeneee, cumpara-ti niste carti de Erich Von Daniken si baga mare. omu' e sarlatan dovedit, da' ce conteaza? nu e frumos ce scrie?

 

Acum trebuie sa-ti imaginezi ca acea civilizatie superioara a venit aici cu rachete cu combustie externa (adica erau si ei la nivelul de "soarece"). Doar ca sa te agati de niste exercitii de imaginatie dintr-un basm...

 

lasa ma omu' sa viseze, are nevoie de mister, chestii, socoteli, vii tu cu ratiunea ta si te c.aci pe visele omului.

[Vizitator 9fingers]

Nu e o ipoteza, e un basm alimentat de niste impostori care isi castiga existanta scriind la greu pe marginea acestui subiect. Mai nou realizeaza si seriale maraton cu "extraterestii antici" care nu fac decat dezinformeze si induca tot felul de aberatii in randul unei audiente mai modeste.

[gn77b]

Nu e o ipoteza, e un basm alimentat de niste impostori care isi castiga existanta scriind la greu pe marginea acestui subiect.

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

 

Von Däniken is one of the main figures responsible for popularizing the "paleo-contact" and ancient astronauts hypotheses. The ideas put forth in his books are largely rejected by scientists and academics, who categorize his work as pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology.

 

...

 

Von Däniken wrote his first book while working as manager of the Hotel Rosenhügel in Davos, Switzerland. He was convicted of several financial crimes, including fraud, shortly after its publication. The revenue from the sales of his book allowed him to repay his debts and leave the hotel business. Von Däniken wrote his second book, Gods from Outer Space, while in prison.

Si ratiunea poate avea limitele ei

si poate Zina Maseluta chiar exista, si poate sub blocul meu e o comoara, si "poate" exista un numar infinit de ipoteze fantasmagorice care se pot fabrica fara a porni de la un suport concret. Editat Septembrie 24, 2013 de gn77b

[gn77b]

Si ratiunea poate avea limitele ei

fa un exercitiu de imaginatie. imagineaza-ti ca e unu' cu un revolver la timpla ta si ca-ti spune ca apasa pe tragaci daca nu-i explici propozitia de mai sus. ai putea sa scapi cu viata?

 

siii... tacere. QED.

[Vizitator 9fingers]

Frate eu stiu de Daniken si ipotezele lui.

Eu insa posed mintea mea proprie si pot trage concluzii proprii.

Acum ce vreti sa faceti sa imi bagati pumnul in gura si sa fiu neaparat de acord cu voi?

Poate ca si ratiunea din spatele unor idei cunoscute e limitata.

Giordano Bruno cu mult inainte de Daniken si a fost ars pe rug.

Bine ca nu mai suntem in Evul Mediu ca sa o faceti .

Ca ati face-o.

Poate ca si pe Michio Kaku , fizician cunoscut l-ati arde pe rug.

L-au ars altii, matematicieni si geneticieni, cand si-a dat cu parerea in stilul binecunoscut, despre lucrui pe care le stapaneste doar la nivel de liceu.

La TV bate campii de multa vreme cu tot felul de fabulatii cu tehnologii ale viitorului si E.T.. O face pe bani buni si pt un anumit segement de public, cu o varsta destul de scazuta.

 

 

 

Ma exprim metaforic dar asta este inchizitia in zilele noatre, dezbaterea informata, si este una benefica. Orice sarlatan de tepa lui Daniken (si eu am citit amintiri depsre viitor prin scoala generala) este desfiintat imediat.

Pacat ca aceasta tema isi gaseste locul pe posturi consacrate popularizarii stiintei. Dar asta nu credibilizeaza basmele lor, ci a tranformat niste televiziuni ca discovery si nat-geo in niste gunoaie interesate strict de audiente. Numai porcarii cu fantome, fenomene paranormale, extraterestrii si tot felul de scenete penibile cu neandertalieni politically correct....

Editat Septembrie 24, 2013 de 9fingers