Announcement

Collapse

Archeology 201 Guidelines

If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.

Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?

Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.

Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Christianity and the Origin of Sanskrit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    shunya, my English was fine. People on this forum are constantly telling you that you are the one with reading comprehension issues. Why do you think they keep say that? Do you honestly believe that everyone else is unclear, and it is you with the better grasp of English?

    You did not respond to the previous post. Please avoid Ad honinems like above and address the problem of how you worded post #23.

    So what you're saying is that the nihilist who believes that knowledge does not exist or that it is a fantasy really does know something even if they deny that they do.
    Do what?????
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-26-2015, 08:32 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      You did not respond to the previous post. Please avoid Ad honinems like above and address the problem of how you worded post #23.
      What did you want me to respond to? Where did you ask me a question that required a response? If telling you that your English is unclear is an ad hom, then you are also guilty of it in post #42 when you told me to speak in plain English.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        What did you want me to respond to? Where did you ask me a question that required a response? If telling you that your English is unclear is an ad hom, then you are also guilty of it in post #42 when you told me to speak in plain English.
        At present I am waiting for you to respond clearly to what you stated in post #23. It is an ad hom to bring up outside what evers concerning what other people think, and not respond to the question at hand.

        Do what??????????????????????
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          At present I am waiting for you to respond clearly to what you stated in post #23.
          Ask me a question and I'll give you a response. What exactly is your question?

          It is an ad hom to bring up outside what evers concerning what other people think, and not respond to the question at hand.
          Do you have a source that I can see that says that committing an ad hom is to "bring up outside what evers concerning what other people think"? And why is it that when you tell people that they are not speaking plain English it isn't an ad hom, but when others reply to your comment about speaking English it becomes an ad hom?

          Do what??????????????????????
          Do what what? What does this mean?

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            If I attempted to quote you directly every time I replied to you we'd end up with needlessly complicated and extremely wordy posts that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. You don't quote me every time you reply to me, why should I have to quote you every time I reply to you? And even when you directly quote me as you did two posts up, you still got what I said wrong.
            NO, you did not quote me directly. Tried?!?!?!

            Do you or do you not agree that Nihilists deny that knowledge exists?
            No, The definition does not say knowledge does not exist. The definition says Nihilists BELIEVE knowledge and reality are an illusion and ultimately does not exist. Again and again and again, this is a belief based on their rational decisions concerning their knowledge they acquired in their life time. They do not deny they do not have knowledge. They BELIEVE this knowledge is ultimately an illusion and all of reality including our physical world does not exist.

            Do you or do you not agree that Nihilists have knowledge despite the fact that they may deny that knowledge exists?
            Your changing your original post #23 by adding 'may,' which does not answer the question. It is the nature of knowledge and reality that Nihilists believe is illusion and not real, not whether knowledge exists in the world or in their head.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              NO, you did not quote me directly.
              I know I didn't directly quote you. You directly quoted me telling you I didn't directly quote you. Are you okay? Are you reading the words that you're replying to?

              Tried?!?!?!
              What does "Tried" with a bunch of exclamation and question marks mean?

              No, The definition does not say knowledge does not exist.
              I didn't ask you if any definition says knowledge does not exist. Where are you getting this from?

              The definition says Nihilists BELIEVE knowledge and reality are an illusion and ultimately does not exist.
              While this is exactly what I was attempting to get you to confirm in post #23, where in the definitions I offered do you see the word "BELIEVE"?

              Again and again and again, this is a belief based on their rational decisions concerning their knowledge they acquired in their life time.
              Which, again, is what I was attempting to get you to confirm in post #23.

              They do not deny they do not have knowledge.
              So they deny knowledge, and they believe that knowledge is not possible, but they also do not deny that they do not have knowledge? How is that possible?

              They BELIEVE this knowledge is ultimately an illusion and all of reality including our physical world does not exist.
              So you believe that Nihilists believe that even though they deny knowledge, and believe that knowledge is not possible, they also hold a secondary belief that their own knowledge (which they deny) is an illusion? You don't think its more likely that the Nihilist simply believes that knowledge is not possible, but we, the non-Nihilists, know this to be untrue, and that the Nihilist actually does possess knowledge even if they themselves deny it?

              Your changing your original post #23 by adding 'may,' which does not answer the question.
              What was the question? I keep asking you what you're attempting to ask me, but you won't tell me. And how does the word "may" change the meaning of my post #23?

              It is the nature of knowledge and reality that Nihilists believe is illusion and not real, not whether knowledge exists in the world or in their head.
              So it isn't that the Nihilist denies the concept of knowledge, they don't, they simply assume that the knowledge that they themselves possess is an illusion. Is that what you're saying?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                I know I didn't directly quote you. You directly quoted me telling you I didn't directly quote you. Are you okay? Are you reading the words that you're replying to?
                Please quote medirectly.



                What does "Tried" with a bunch of exclamation and question marks mean?
                You tried and failed.




                So they deny knowledge, and they believe that knowledge is not possible,
                No, they do not deny knowledge. Their belief defines the ultimate nature of knowledge as an illusion, and like the physical reality we live in, it in some way does not exist

                but they also do not deny that they do not have knowledge? How is that possible?
                They do not deny they have knowledge. They believe that knowledge is ultimately an illusion, and like or physical reality is 'ultimately' an illusion.

                Simplistic definitions I may agree with but if Nihilism is not fully understood it can lead to circular foolish arguments such as this.

                The preferred realistic definition that is believable is:

                Source:

                Helmut Thielicke’s, Nihilism: Its Origin and Nature, with a Christian Answer2 warns, “Nihilism literally has only one truth to declare, namely, that ultimately Nothingness prevails and the world is meaningless."

                © Copyright Original Source



                There are different 'kinds' of Nihilism discussed in this reference, but most pretty much support the Nihilistic believe all hold to the ultimate nature of nothingness, that everything is ultimately an illusion. Similar to some Vedic beliefs, Hinduism and Buddhism.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-26-2015, 06:24 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  No, they do not deny knowledge.
                  In post #33 I asked if you disagreed with this citation, "Nihilism of an epistemological form can be seen as an extreme form of skepticism in which all knowledge is denied.",

                  You replied (and I quote) "No, I agree with them.".

                  Their belief defines the ultimate nature of knowledge as an illusion, and like the physical reality we live in, it in some way does not exist
                  That's gobbledygook for new age spiritualists, and is barely coherent. What does it mean for a person's beliefs to define something? What the heck is an ultimate nature of knowledge?

                  They do not deny they have knowledge. They believe that knowledge is ultimately an illusion, and like or physical reality is 'ultimately' an illusion.
                  The citation that you agreed with literally says (and again, I quote), "Nihilism of an epistemological form can be seen as an extreme form of skepticism in which all knowledge is denied." How can they both deny knowledge, and not deny knowledge?

                  Simplistic definitions I may agree with but if Nihilism is not fully understood it can lead to circular foolish arguments such as this.
                  Probably doesn't help when you contradict yourself every other post, tell me I'm committing some sort of ad hom that you yourself are apparently guilty of, ignoring my questions to you, and telling me that you're waiting on me to respond to questions you haven't asked.

                  The preferred realistic definition that is believable is:

                  Source:

                  Helmut Thielicke’s, Nihilism: Its Origin and Nature, with a Christian Answer2 warns, “Nihilism literally has only one truth to declare, namely, that ultimately Nothingness prevails and the world is meaningless."

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  What is a "realistic" definition and how is a "realistic" definition different from the definitions I cited and that you already agreed with? Why is this definition preferred, and who is it preferred by? What is a "Christian Answer2", and why is your realistic preferred definition phrased as a warning? Inquiring minds want to know.


                  There are different 'kinds' of Nihilism discussed in this reference, but most pretty much support the Nihilistic believe all hold to the ultimate nature of nothingness, that everything is ultimately an illusion. Similar to some Vedic beliefs, Hinduism and Buddhism.
                  So then, are Hindus and Buddhists a type of Nihilist?


                  P.S. Fix your tags before you post, its very hard to read and respond to your replies when half of your post is made up of my quotes.
                  Last edited by Adrift; 01-26-2015, 04:52 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    In post #33 I asked if you disagreed with this citation, "Nihilism of an epistemological form can be seen as an extreme form of skepticism in which all knowledge is denied.",

                    You replied (and I quote) "No, I agree with them.".
                    All Nihilists deny the 'ultimate' reality of knowledge. This is a belief system concerning the nature of knowledge and reality, and not that indivualsmay have and use knowledge in their life. I believe the definition allows for the temporal existence of knowledge, as well it is compatible with Nihilist belief

                    That's gobbledygook for new age spiritualists, and is barely coherent. What does it mean for a person's beliefs to define something? What the heck is an ultimate nature of knowledge?
                    That all knowledge is ultimately nothingness, but does not conclude that knowledge the time frame exists within ones life. The Nihilist has knowledge that is the believers life.



                    The citation that you agreed with literally says (and again, I quote), "Nihilism of an epistemological form can be seen as an extreme form of skepticism in which all knowledge is denied." How can they both deny knowledge, and not deny knowledge?
                    Yes, again and again is a belief system concerning the nature of knowledge. All Nihilists deny the 'ultimate' reality of knowledge. This is a belief system concerning the ultimate nature of knowledge and reality.Knowledge and reality can exist temporally in the Nihilist worldview.




                    What is a "realistic" definition and how is a "realistic" definition different from the definitions I cited and that you already agreed with? Why is this definition preferred, and who is it preferred by? What is a "Christian Answer2", and why is your realistic preferred definition phrased as a warning? Inquiring minds want to know.
                    The reference goes into more depth then one liner definitions that are ok but misleading. It is a belief that the ultimate nature of knowledge that is illusion. The site discusses Nihilism in more detail and different types of Nihilism then your one-liners.




                    So then, are Hindus and Buddhists a type of Nihilist?
                    They may be similar belief systems concerning the nature of knowledge and our physical existence.
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-26-2015, 06:37 PM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      There is evidence that Buddhism arrived in Rome before AD.
                      You confuse it with Stoicism.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                        You confuse it with Stoicism.
                        No, it was Buddhism. I will go into this more, but the coining Buddha on coins in Greek based on Roman trade weight in circulation, and references in a number of places, presence of Buddhist ambassadors to Alexandria, and around Rome pretty much establishes Buddhism contact and knowledge through the trade network.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-02-2015, 02:09 PM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          No, it was Buddhism. I will go into this more, but the coining Buddha on coins in Greek based on Roman trade weight in circulation, and references in a number of places, presence of Buddhist ambassadors to Alexandria, and around Rome pretty much establishes Buddhism contact and knowledge through the trade network.
                          Archeological forgeries have new highs!!?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                            Archeological forgeries have new highs!!?
                            What forgeries????

                            Please document??
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              What forgeries????

                              Please document??
                              Buddhas, its original name, would have to be stamped on Bronze or Iron, and may pre-Byzantine Greek building are mistaken for old Hellenic buildings. You certainly can't press Buddhas with anything that would be in undiscovered Gold. And I don't place much faith in the dates that are on any coin. There is still a chance that it is the buddhas mentioned by pre-byzantine or byzantine writer.

                              Also let us not forget how recent those Buddhist scrolls were, and that the Buddha is mentioned much later, if I recall correctly.

                              How much Bronze was a days worth of pay BTW? How big was the Drachma. It could be bigger than the hand.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                                Buddhas, its original name, would have to be stamped on Bronze or Iron, and may pre-Byzantine Greek building are mistaken for old Hellenic buildings. You certainly can't press Buddhas with anything that would be in undiscovered Gold. And I don't place much faith in the dates that are on any coin. There is still a chance that it is the buddhas mentioned by pre-byzantine or byzantine writer.

                                Also let us not forget how recent those Buddhist scrolls were, and that the Buddha is mentioned much later, if I recall correctly.

                                How much Bronze was a days worth of pay BTW? How big was the Drachma. It could be bigger than the hand.
                                No sources cited here just conjecture.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 05:38 AM
                                0 responses
                                10 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by tabibito, 09-07-2023, 02:41 PM
                                30 responses
                                134 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X