Oldest recorded "God"?

[Ghost]

Hey, fst.

I don't come from that school so I can neither comment on it nor affiliate myself with it. I am what I am. I state what I believe.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

[fstratzero]

(27-01-2013 02:31 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, fst.

I don't come from that school so I can neither comment on it nor affiliate myself with it. I am what I am. I state what I believe.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Actually "I am what I am" is a false statement, because you are a being who is doomed to continual change.

Also it is a fallacy because it is an assertion of one’s feelings, thinkings or beliefs as evidence for the conclusion of his/her proposition. No other evidence is given to support his/her conclusion.

click this

[Ghost]

Now you're just being a jackass.

I think that my response on page four represents the last time that I'm going to take time out of my day to respond to you in a comprehensive manner. You not only don't appreciate it, but you don't engage with it and you shit on it. It's been real.

[PoolBoyG]

Arguments and derailing aside, thank you to the users who provided sources for suspected deities AND dates.

I understand animals, or celestial bodies were recorded extremely early, but whether they were considered deities, I'm not so sure. I suppose it's easier to classify if there's blatant personification (i'm not asking for a moon with a smiley face, but you get the idea. Animal/human hybrid is a good one).

I'd like to know what was the earliest - sun or moon? animals? ancestral? Or maybe it was something entirely different.

[fstratzero]

(27-01-2013 07:51 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Now you're just being a jackass.

I think that my response on page four represents the last time that I'm going to take time out of my day to respond to you in a comprehensive manner. You not only don't appreciate it, but you don't engage with it and you shit on it. It's been real.

That's because relativism on it's own is an untenable position on the reality of the world. However you seem to rationalize your position by redefining relativism.

[Ghost]

Hey, fst.

I know not seems.
-Hamlet

Well as convincing as your "because it is" argument is, I'm gonna go on assuming that relativism is correct, which it is.

Secondly, if you need to tell yourself that I'm somehow redefining relativism in order to dismiss what I have to say so that you can continue to cling tenaciously to your preconceived narrative, you go ahead and you do that. I didn't invent the constructivist model. If anyone is interested, they can head on down to their friendly neighbourhood university and learn about it there because it is taught UBIQUITOUSLY.

[fstratzero]

(02-02-2013 05:00 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, fst.

I know not seems.
-Hamlet

Well as convincing as your "because it is" argument is, I'm gonna go on assuming that relativism is correct, which it is.

Secondly, if you need to tell yourself that I'm somehow redefining relativism in order to dismiss what I have to say so that you can continue to cling tenaciously to your preconceived narrative, you go ahead and you do that. I didn't invent the constructivist model. If anyone is interested, they can head on down to their friendly neighborhood university and learn about it there because it is taught UBIQUITOUSLY.

Equivocation much?

• Constructivism (art), a 20th-century artistic movement
• Constructivism (international relations)
• Constructivism (learning theory), a theory about the nature of learning
• Constructivism (mathematics), a philosophical view on mathematical proofs and existence of mathematical objects
• Constructivism (psychological school), an approach to psychological research and therapy
• Constructivist architecture, an architectural movement in Russia from 1919 onwards
• Constructivist epistemology, common meanings and underlying structures of all constructivism
• Constructivist teaching methods
• Social constructivism, the role of culture and social context for cognitive development

[fstratzero]

(02-02-2013 05:00 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, fst.

I know not seems.
-Hamlet

Well as convincing as your "because it is" argument is, I'm gonna go on assuming that relativism is correct, which it is.

Secondly, if you need to tell yourself that I'm somehow redefining relativism in order to dismiss what I have to say so that you can continue to cling tenaciously to your preconceived narrative, you go ahead and you do that. I didn't invent the constructivist model. If anyone is interested, they can head on down to their friendly neighbourhood university and learn about it there because it is taught UBIQUITOUSLY.

Now I know why you hate definitions, because they do not allow you to make up your versions of reality and then assert it as truth.


Relativism multiple sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism
Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/relativi/
Relativism is sometimes identified (usually by its critics) as the thesis that all points of view are equally valid.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/relativism
A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/
Relativism is not a single doctrine but a family of views whose common theme is that some central aspect of experience, thought, evaluation, or even reality is somehow relative to something else. For example standards of justification, moral principles or truth are sometimes said to be relative to language, culture, or biological makeup. Although relativistic lines of thought often lead to very implausible conclusions, there is something seductive about them, and they have captivated a wide range of thinkers from a wide range of traditions.

[Ghost]

Blah blah blah.

Wake me up when you say something relevant.

[bbeljefe]

My favorite relativist proclamation...

"Everything is relative."