Think The Ancient Serpent Gods really existed

[Reignite]

12 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Do you realize that myths of dragons/serpents have been inspired by fossils other than those of dinosaurs? E.g. "dragon's teeth" from China belonging to the giant ape Gigantopithecus or the Klagenfurt "lindwurm" based on the skull of a woolly rhino.

I have corrected my self. Do you have references pointing to literature incorporating this Chinese "dragon’s teeth"?

[stereologist]

18 minutes ago, Reignite said:

Well I think it's illogical to jump to that conclusion, especially since I have yet to come across any reference to dinosaur fossils, and I see no reason why they neglect to mention that part.

It's not simple, it's complicated, but it's certainly not impossible to deduct the philosophy behind it and see that those symbolic representations have nothing to do with imaginations based on fossils. Have you read any of the links I posted?

Here is where I get to correct you. Notice I don't call you a liar or claimed you have lied. The correction is of course as minor as the corrections you posted for me.

I have not suggested that this had anything to do with finding fossils, dinosaur or any other fossil. All I suggested was that someone found or saw something that might have inspired them.  No mention of fossils.

Human imaginations are amazing and have been for a long time. A snake could have been a real snake, or looking down on a river. Who knows what was the inspiration.

This imagination is not complicated. It is simple. People add properties to things without a thought. They assign things to plants and animals easily. They assign properties to planets. They assign properties to the Moon.

[Carnoferox]

Just now, Reignite said:

I have corrected my self. Do you have references pointing to literature incorporating this Chinese "dragon’s teeth"?

See Zhang & Harrison (2017) for a good overview of Gigantopithecus. If you want to translate German, then read the original description by von Koenigswald (1935).

[Reignite]

5 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Here is where I get to correct you. Notice I don't call you a liar or claimed you have lied. The correction is of course as minor as the corrections you posted for me.

I have not suggested that this had anything to do with finding fossils, dinosaur or any other fossil. All I suggested was that someone found or saw something that might have inspired them.  No mention of fossils.

Human imaginations are amazing and have been for a long time. A snake could have been a real snake, or looking down on a river. Who knows what was the inspiration.

This imagination is not complicated. It is simple. People add properties to things without a thought. They assign things to plants and animals easily. They assign properties to planets. They assign properties to the Moon.

You've got me!

Well anyway, I stand by what I said. Here is my correction:

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

If it is taken symbolically and not literally, that does not mean that the symbol itself was not based on something someone saw or found.

Well I think it's illogical to jump to that conclusion.

Quote

Imagining things and then adding properties to things is simple for people to do. Pretty soon that combination can be symbolic.

It's not simple, it's complicated, but it's certainly not impossible to deduct the philosophy behind it and see that those symbolic representations have nothing to do with imaginations based on something someone saw or found. Have you read any of the links I posted?

[Trelane]

38 minutes ago, Reignite said:

Well I think it's illogical to jump to that conclusion, especially since I have yet to come across any reference to dinosaur any fossils, and I see no reason why they neglect to mention that part.

 

You think it's logical that flying serpents as described actually existed despite the volumes of information that state otherwise?

[Carnoferox]

44 minutes ago, Reignite said:

Well I think it's illogical to jump to that conclusion, especially since I have yet to come across any reference to dinosaur any fossils, and I see no reason why they neglect to mention that part.

 

24 minutes ago, Reignite said:

I have corrected my self. Do you have references pointing to literature incorporating this Chinese "dragon’s teeth"?

Also, your correction is nonsensical because I've already provided many references to fossils being the inspirations for certain myths and being used as ceremonial objects.

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, Reignite said:

You've got me!

Well anyway, I stand by what I said. Here is my correction:

Well I think it's illogical to jump to that conclusion.

It's not simple, it's complicated, but it's certainly not impossible to deduct the philosophy behind it and see that those symbolic representations have nothing to do with imaginations based on something someone saw or found. Have you read any of the links I posted?

You can claim it is illogical, but you don't say why. It certainly isn't illogical. It is quite logical that this happens.

Let's take a symbol and see how this works. I think I'll pick symbolism for love.

1. harp
2. maple leaf
3. dove
4. apple
5. seashell
6. swan

These are symbols from different places. Each  of these symbols is something someone saw or found.

Just because it is a symbol does not mean it is not from the imagination. Layering symbols in more and more ideas does not change the symbol's origins as something someone saw or found.

I hear the same from fundamentalists in other religions.

[stereologist]

When I think of thick and dubious symbolism I think of astrology. Those are planets, the Moon, and the Sun. As new discoveries are made by real science astrology adds them into the lexicon of astrological symbolism. Horoscopes mention Uranus, and Neptune, and even Pluto and the asteroids. Yet, none of these later objects are visible to the unaided eye. Pretty soon they'll be adding dark matter.

The planet of love is Venus. I have no idea if the following links are correct or not but they describe Venus according to Astrology in India.

http://www.sanatansociety.org/vedic_astrology_and_numerology/vedic_astrology_horoscopes_venus.htm

http://shrivinayakaastrology.com/Planets/roleofvenus.html

It's a planet similar to Earth in size and is a rocky planet. It is assigned properties. It is assigned more properties. Here is a quote from the first site.

Quote

When rightly aspected Venus is strong, and it brings wealth, comfort, attraction to the opposite sex in the early part of life. It makes its natives tender, gentle and considerate. They are lovers of jewelry, sour (pungent) taste, white dresses, decoration, perfumes, tasty foods and the fine arts.

Astrology is still believed by millions of people around the word and it is has been so for generations. None of that makes it true or even plausible. It is the sort of symbolism that starts small and grows and grows into greater complexity

[Reignite]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

You can claim it is illogical, but you don't say why. It certainly isn't illogical. It is quite logical that this happens.

And yo are avoiding my question. Have you read my post and the links? I provided explanations as to why I think it is illogical to jump to conclusions.

[stereologist]

5 minutes ago, Reignite said:

And yo are avoiding my question. Have you read my post and the links? I provided explanations as to why I think it is illogical to jump to conclusions.

I just looked back and reread your posts and you do not appear to have done that.

As far as your links go I asked what in those links you think is pertinent to the discussion. That was my response to your question.

You provided 4 links. Is that the links you are referring to?

[Reignite]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

When I think of thick and dubious symbolism I think of astrology. Those are planets, the Moon, and the Sun. As new discoveries are made by real science astrology adds them into the lexicon of astrological symbolism. Horoscopes mention Uranus, and Neptune, and even Pluto and the asteroids. Yet, none of these later objects are visible to the unaided eye. Pretty soon they'll be adding dark matter.

The planet of love is Venus. I have no idea if the following links are correct or not but they describe Venus according to Astrology in India.

http://www.sanatansociety.org/vedic_astrology_and_numerology/vedic_astrology_horoscopes_venus.htm

http://shrivinayakaastrology.com/Planets/roleofvenus.html

It's a planet similar to Earth in size and is a rocky planet. It is assigned properties. It is assigned more properties. Here is a quote from the first site.

Astrology is still believed by millions of people around the word and it is has been so for generations. None of that makes it true or even plausible. It is the sort of symbolism that starts small and grows and grows into greater complexity

I don't trust these links since there is no reference to literature. Which there is plenty of. I'm sure some it traces back to some authentic text but it helps actually having those references.

But anyway, what is your point? What is the connection here between this Astrology symbolism and those found in literature containing serpent-like beings?

[Reignite]

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I just looked back and reread your posts and you do not appear to have done that.

As far as your links go I asked what in those links you think is pertinent to the discussion. That was my response to your question.

You provided 4 links. Is that the links you are referring to?

I'm talking about post #236 to which you only quoted the last portion without saying anything about the links or my explanations. This was posted after you asked that question.

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, Reignite said:

I don't trust these links since there is no reference to literature. Which there is plenty of. I'm sure some it traces back to some authentic text but it helps actually having those references.

But anyway, what is your point? What is the connection here between this Astrology symbolism and those found in literature containing serpent-like beings?

It's astrology.  There is no need to reference literature when this is the pseudoscience of astrology.

It i simply an illustration of seeing something, adding properties, and adding more and more complexity.

You seem to want to be obtuse. I am providing an example of a claim I made. Here is what you posted: " It's not simple, it's complicated, but it's certainly not impossible to deduct the philosophy behind it and see that those symbolic representations have nothing to do with imaginations based on something someone saw or found. "

Astrology is flush with symbolic representations based on something someone saw.

 

[stereologist]

2 minutes ago, Reignite said:

I'm talking about post #236 to which you only quoted the last portion without saying anything about the links or my explanations. This was posted after you asked that question.

That was a post responding to Carnoferox. No, I didn't bother reading those links. You quoted the relevant material.

I did note that you provided a substitution for the word millennium. Not sure why, that was not relevant to the discussion.

[Carnoferox]

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

That was a post responding to Carnoferox. No, I didn't bother reading those links. You quoted the relevant material.

I did note that you provided a substitution for the word millennium. Not sure why, that was not relevant to the discussion.

He can't even keep his posters straight! 

[Reignite]

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

That was a post responding to Carnoferox. No, I didn't bother reading those links. You quoted the relevant material.

I did note that you provided a substitution for the word millennium. Not sure why, that was not relevant to the discussion.

Yes well you responded to that post. What do you mean substitution? Kalpa is the actual word used in the Sanskrit text. You would know this you had "bothered" to read the links. It was relevant because

[stereologist]

Just now, Carnoferox said:

He can't even keep his posters straight! 

That's been happening all along. He wrote a complaint to me that I had not read a post he made responding to a post not directed to him.

[stereologist]

Just now, Reignite said:

Yes well you responded to that post. What do you mean substitution? Kalpa is the actual word used in the Sanskrit text. You would know this you had "bothered" to read the links. It was relevant because

Are you saying you purposely misquoted the link?

[Reignite]

2 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

He can't even keep his posters straight! 

So the ridicule has started. Immature.

[Carnoferox]

Just now, Reignite said:

So the ridicule has started. Immature.

I'm just stating what has been happening throughout this thread. Please try to pay attention.

[Reignite]

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Are you saying you purposely misquoted the link?

What? You quoted my post #236 in #246. That is what lead to this discussion.

Edited January 25, 2019 by Reignite

[stereologist]

Just now, Reignite said:

What? You quoted my post in #246. That is what lead to this discussion.

You are easily confused by straightforward statements.

You provided a link, but claimed that the " Kalpa is the actual word used in the Sanskrit text. " as the reason to post irrelevant information into the thread. The link provides a translation.The translation does not use kalpa. It uses millennium. Above, it suggests kalpa-ante is a synonym for millennium. It states kalpa-ante, not kalpa.

Did you read and comprehend your own link?

[Reignite]

9 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You are easily confused by straightforward statements.

You provided a link, but claimed that the " Kalpa is the actual word used in the Sanskrit text. " as the reason to post irrelevant information into the thread. The link provides a translation.The translation does not use kalpa. It uses millennium. Above, it suggests kalpa-ante is a synonym for millennium. It states kalpa-ante, not kalpa.

Did you read and comprehend your own link?

Actually, Kalpa-anta is a compound word meaning, Kalpa=millennium, anta=end, thus the word Kalpa is used in a compound form. I was only adding my explanation to indicate what the word Kalpa meant.

Besides, I did not claim the Kalpa is the actual word used in the Sanskrit text (even though it does, in compound-form). I said, Millenium here refers to the Sanskrit word kalpa,  equaling 4.32 billion years.

The word-for-word translation also says: kalpa-ante — at the end of the millennium.

What is your point?

Edited January 25, 2019 by Reignite

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, Reignite said:

Actually, Kalpa-anta is a compound word meaning, Kalpa=millennium, anta=end, thus the word Kalpa is used in a compound form. I was only adding my explanation to indicate what the word Kalpa meant.

Besides, I did not claim the Kalpa is the actual word used in the Sanskrit text. I said, Millenium here refers to the Sanskrit word kalpa,  equaling 4.32 billion years.

The word-for-word translation also says: kalpa-ante — at the end of the millennium.

What is your point?

That time period is irrelevant to the discussion.

BTW, millennium means 1000 years. That suggests this is a poor translation. Or maybe your translation of the compound word is missing a meaning formed by the compound word.

 

[Reignite]

23 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You are easily confused by straightforward statements.

You provided a link, but claimed that the " Kalpa is the actual word used in the Sanskrit text. " as the reason to post irrelevant information into the thread. The link provides a translation.The translation does not use kalpa. It uses millennium. Above, it suggests kalpa-ante is a synonym for millennium. It states kalpa-ante, not kalpa.

Did you read and comprehend your own link?

stereologist, for two times now you partly quote my post which, although originally was meant for someone else, leads to a discussion [between us]. When I ask you if you have even read that particular post, you say something like, “That was a post responding to Carnoferox”... Now you make it look like I confuse things, which is unfair since you are the one quote me leading to a discussion!

Edited January 25, 2019 by Reignite
brackets=edit