Genetic Variation (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, October 03, 2010, 15:44 (4975 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by unknown, Sunday, October 03, 2010, 15:57

The story of Gilgamesh was a 'myth', greatly embellished, that contained grains of historical truth that have been proven by science. However, even the story of Gilgamesh carries undertones of esoteric teachings that covers things like the death of the sun. But it also disclosed a very real historical accounting of the Black Sea flood.
> -The book I'm writing is rooted upon the entire epic of Gilgamesh; and every scholar of religion agrees that Gilgamesh was the proto-tale for Noah's Ark. Just like how Christian hell was actually a syncretism of Zorastrian and Jewish Mysticism. The general mode in comparative religions is that all the religions we have today all shared a common route going all the way back to our emergence out of Africa. That's why it's interesting that that small group of Uighurs I mentioned don't have a flood myth. -But again, ascribing the kind of accuracy that you want to with religious texts is generally only done through interpretive sophistry. If you engage in an act of demonstrating that the Bible had some accuracy, you can readily "verify" anything it says just by changing all the semantics of the words--like in Ezekiel. -> I am not so literal minded that I do not see the connections to the deeper mystical and spiritual meanings behind what I read, nor am I so naive as to take ever word ever written as truth. However, I am also well aware that, sometimes, there are many different layers of meaning inside a single statement. We use a play on words to form many of the worlds greatest pun's, jokes, and satires, and ancient writers were no different in that respect. 
> 
> Sometimes, the truth is that we simply ignore what we find because we can't explain it. There is no doubt that the Hindu texts I linked were probably laced through with spiritual admonishments and esoteric teachings. But I am highly doubtful that they could write about, and with astonishing amounts of detail and accuracy, something for which they had no possible frame of reference.-The link you gave me there resonates with one account I'd heard of for the birth of the Hindu religion. At some point long-past, Persians conquered the land, and the short-shrift of it was that they had installed themselves as rulers, and built the religion and caste system. I recently started reading "Bhagavad Gita As it Is," and in the introduction the author states with a dictation that "...everything there is has a controller. A person who thinks they are not controlled is insane." Though, in the same introduction he says "The reader should read the Bhagavad Gita in a mind of Submission, or they will not extract the proper meanings." -Aside from the fact that these two statements contradict each other, we have a strong suggestion right off the bat that there is a reason they are trying to abolish free will. Hinduism is largely seen as having created and supported the caste system. This explanation makes sense--Iranians were incredible innovators in religion. -That said, I never paid much attention to Vimanas the first time through the Gita, I will this time. But just to throw this out there: the earliest mention of Vimana as a flying object, was as a flying chariot for Sri Krsna. Other things I've seen online were for giant flying pyramids. They also had battering rams. So far, I've seen nothing that was so outlandish that a creative writer couldn't synthesize it.-[EDIT]
But lets return to your goal: If your goal is make scientists take claims made in religious books as real, you do so using scientific claims. Because of how interpretive sophistry works, people like me will never take religious texts THAT seriously, because at least in my case doubt is the centerpiece of my thinking. Skepticism is the centerpiece of western philosophy; Science is based on empiricism, (rationalism is out of scope) and you're engaging in rationalism when you try and bridge the Black Sea Flood to Noah/Gilgamesh. Rationalism and Empiricism are two separate answers to the the problem of skepticism, but although all empirical claims are rational, the converse isn't true, that all rational claims are empirical. You need to deal with this problem, because it is THIS problem which gives difficulty to you. Not "closed minds" but the normative epistemology the person is operating with. Understand that, and you will make better cases. -No one doubts that "revealed texts" contain truths, but what truths those are and where they are is definitely not clear. You face an uphill battle here, my friend.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"