• The forum has been updated. For an explanation of some of the changes, head over here.

Is Mythology the turth disguised as a Tale? or a Tale to disguise a Turth?

Currently viewing this thread:

Merlkir

Ech, even pointing out all the nonsense in ancalimon's posts is a full time job.

You just keep re-discovering that Turks are a part of the human kind, evolved among many other cultures and nations. And completely misinterpreting it, so that it fits your very improbable hypothesis.
 

Amagic

Baron
I think it's a bit too much to call it misinterpreting.

This is what writing the bible must've been like.
 

Ule

Veteran
ancalimon said:
Dragons aren't real. They are wolves. Dragons are the imaginations of Chinese and Europeans. Just like "Indo-European"

Folk were Turkic. They are "not" Turkic now.


Dragons arent real?! **** off! you dont say!!

But they are wolves?! What the ****?! Thats just insane words Dragons are Dragons, Wolves are Wolves ones mythological, but is huge scaley can fly breath fire sometimes talk eats virgins etc etc, the other is a canine that excists and is furry. Again your logic is flawed as flawed and as useless as a chocolate fire guard.

And folk werent Turkic arent Turkic never will be Turkic.

Yea we should all stop, but its so wrong! Everything is just so wrong to ignore it would be like ignoring some one saying the Moon is made of cheese (which it is, Turkish cheese, put thier by the space Turks.

As it says in the Book of Arcalimon, Chapter 12, page 3600, line 200 " for they the mighyest space Turks migtyest all of the space people (who are also Turks ((but not real Turks, just Turks, who are releted to them because they are Turkish (((because everything is Turkish ((((even Turkish delight)))))))))) came upon the Earth (called Turkey, for it is writen ((here)) and seeing the world decided to put a ball of cheese into orbit (for they are Turkish and thus are always right ((and wise)) and thus the Earth (called Turkey) got the moon. For they are indeed mighty. Amen"
 

Allegro

Baron
WBNWVCWF&SM&B
Kvedulf said:
That is debatable.  Not sure on the genetic studies for Gaul, but the genetic population of Britain, until very recently, has remained relatively unchanged since the Neolithic.  The actual change in genetics, from what I can remember, is only about 10%.  So the population of Britain, at any rate, appears to have never really been affected by the influx of the various invaders, settlers and migrants.
Roman accounts give that Romans massacred and enslaved millions of Celts when they conquered France and Switzerland. And I vaugely remember reading same thing about Spain too.
 

Helix Falks

Squire
WBWF&S
Is Mythology the turth disguised as a Tale? or a Tale to disguise a Turth?

No.

Mythology is fiction not to be confused with Legend which is a story that has a basis in historic fact.

Such as Robin hood, King Arthor, Troy and the Amazons.
 

Amagic

Baron
Allegro said:
Kvedulf said:
That is debatable.  Not sure on the genetic studies for Gaul, but the genetic population of Britain, until very recently, has remained relatively unchanged since the Neolithic.  The actual change in genetics, from what I can remember, is only about 10%.  So the population of Britain, at any rate, appears to have never really been affected by the influx of the various invaders, settlers and migrants.
Roman accounts give that Romans massacred and enslaved millions of Celts when they conquered France and Switzerland. And I vaugely remember reading same thing about Spain too.

You sure there were so many of them? Sounds like bloody genocide but I don't remember anything about Romans committing genocide around there. Killing yes, but not that much.
 

Merlkir

Notice he says "and enslaved". Gaul was a roman province, it would make no sense to annihilate the whole population. It's better to have them working for you.
 

Allegro

Baron
WBNWVCWF&SM&B
Well Plutarch claims Romans killed 1 million Gauls and enslaved 1,5 million. Maybe he was exaggerating the numbers, but a census conducted by Ceasar himself suggests that 2/3 of population in Switzerland were killed. Annihilating a population never makes sense, but if everyone acted with sense there wouldnt have been any massacres or genocides. It is known that Ceasar took punitive measures, maybe he just preferred to wreak havoc upon the unruly Gauls and govern the crippled whats left of them.
 
Merlkir said:
ancalimon said:
Merlkir said:
Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be.

Care to enlighten us what it was? And possibly how you know?

It's in Jesus's diary  :roll:

right, of course it is. Because it was written in Turkic and Jesus wrote it himself after he got resurrected.

By the way "Tengri, Khuday, Deos and God" is a surprisingly little annoying anthropological musing about some pretty general stuff. But not horrible, just slightly biased.
Nothing to do with TUrks being the master race, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to post it as proof of super ancient turk alphabet.

At least I think Christ was a Turk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnvEHObMMH4

These guys (since they skipped the knowledge I gathered and tried to reach a conclusion with only the knowledge they had in hand and since they seem to have fallen down the rabbit hole to wonderland) say that Christ was a mushroom. :smile:
 

Merlkir

I'll watch that over lunch. I don't really care about jesus, but him being a mushroom sounds fun.

edit: It's pretty boring. Basics of philosophy, astrology, lots of twisted facts and outright lies to support their rather shaky hypothesis. Sounds familiar. Oh wait, the pile of **** called Zeitgeist used this "research" or something like that. Ok.

(trying to expose religion as mythology is nice of course, but this "documentary" is hardly science.)
 

Kvedulf

Sergeant Knight
I said I was going to keep posting this until you answered me.  Now yes, I know that there are other people here who have more coherent ways to question, and who know the relevant topics better, but I really don't like being ignored when I ask a question.  So Ancalimon, answer my points.

Kvedulf said:
ancalimon said:
I don't need to prove anything.

And that is why Ancalimon can never be defeated...

Mind you, you've still ignored me.  Although I don't want to repost a wall of text, I'm going to until you answer my questions and the points I've made:

Kvedulf said:
ancalimon said:
There were people in Europe but they didn't have a language. Not in the sense what we today call a language.

Where is you evidence for this?

ancalimon said:
I don't say Indo-European languages are derived from Turkic languages...(they were artificially created by the elite clergy over time) I only say that Indo-European words are Turkic in origin.

Where is your evidence for this?

ancalimon said:
So when I say that Europeans are Turkic in origin, I don't mean that Europeans that were living in Europe 20000 years ago were Turkic.

There are two very important things:

1-)The elite group can force people to speak another language "only if they have more population"

2-)Mother teaches her child her own mother language... Also see "1"


I don't say Indo-European languages are derived from Turkic languages...(they were artificially created by the elite clergy over time) I only say that Indo-European words are Turkic in origin.

First up, point 1 is wrong.  Just take a look at the Romanisation of Gaul.  Or Britain.  The native Gallic or British populations were much greater than the "elite" Roman population, yet Latin replaced the Celtic languages in both places.  Or Britain after it's abandonment by Rome.  The native population of Latin speakers was much greater than the Germanic speaking Anglo-Saxons, yet it was English, not Latin that became the dominant language.

Secondly, you've contradicted yourself (again) by stating in one post that
ancalimon said:
Naturally, with such a position is impossible to agree. We know that the ethnonym can pass from one people to another, without a genetical relationship, but the language is transferred from one people to another only when the peoples are genetically related. From the Türkic runic inscriptions we have a good idea  that already in the 6th-8th centuries the Türkic language was a well developed, standardized language, it already then had no exceptions of the general rules. This language could not be passed in such a harmonious shape to other peoples, ethnically and genetically unrelated with the Türks. Therefore hardly is right L.N.Gumilev, suggesting that Türks, after the split of the first and second Kaganates, had completely disappeared, leaving only their name in inheritance to many peoples who ostensibly were not their descendants at all.

However, you then go on to say that
ancalimon said:
So when I say that Europeans are Turkic in origin, I don't mean that Europeans that were living in Europe 20000 years ago were Turkic.
...
2-)Mother teaches her child her own mother language... Also see "1"

That is two very different concepts that you're spouting there.  So which is it that you're wanting to pursue?

If language is genetic, then it means that the native population of Europe was replaced by genetically (not culturally or ethnically) Turkic people, or that the population of Europe is genetically identical to the Turkic people.  If that's true, it raises the question: which group of "Turkic" people created this great big language?  The Turkic people from Eurasia, or the Turkic people from Europe?

And if language is passed on by the mother...what language was it that was spoken by all those wives and concubines and slave-girls taken by the all-conquering Turkic empire?  You guessed it, their native language, which was not some pseudo-Proto-Turkic.

Cheers
Kvedulf

Unless, of course, you've already answered this in the form of:
ancalimon said:
I don't need to prove anything.

Which brings me to another point:
ancalimon said:
There is no logic to Indo-European languages. No consistency at all. Nature is consistent. Anything that arises from nature is consistent. But not Indo-European. Why is that?

try - lie - I - aye - eye - high - hi - why?:  why do they end with the same sound? Which letter is that? This is "artificial". It's modified. Letters don't suit the words.

y  - ie  - I  - aye - eye - igh  - hi -  hy

Language should be like mathematics. Natural, explainable.. It should arise from needs and it should be reflection of nature.

Point 1: Languages are not "natural".  They are a cultural construct.  They exist and evolve within a culture and that culture's interactions with other cultures.  Languages are not consistent.  All you have to do is take a look at any major language today and compare it to what was spoken/written only 200 years ago.  Hell, less than 20 years ago in some cases.  Languages are constantly shifting, evolving and changing to suit the needs of the culture.  They are anything but "consistent"

Point 2: Your use of the word should in your final paragraph is an indication of personal opinion.  It is your opinion, in a perfect world, of how a language "should" be.  The reality is, as stated above, very different.

Cheers
Kvedulf
 
Merlkir said:
I'll watch that over lunch. I don't really care about jesus, but him being a mushroom sounds fun.

edit: It's pretty boring. Basics of philosophy, astrology, lots of twisted facts and outright lies to support their rather shaky hypothesis. Sounds familiar. Oh wait, the pile of **** called Zeitgeist used this "research" or something like that. Ok.

(trying to expose religion as mythology is nice of course, but this "documentary" is hardly science.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFH21tS4WcE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAp9k8rzQDw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALCOqBSYLkg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8PDt2IKS4k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDh7W4oGxAs&feature=related
 

Merlkir

well. It really is pseudoscience. Many examples they try to use are not actually helping their case, an outer or immediate similarity doesn't necessarily mean relation.
I'm not saying primitive use of halucinogenic mushrooms didn't influence more recent religions in any way, but this Jesus Mushroom theory is too far fetched.
 
Merlkir said:
well. It really is pseudoscience. Many examples they try to use are not actually helping their case, an outer or immediate similarity doesn't necessarily mean relation.
I'm not saying primitive use of halucinogenic mushrooms didn't influence more recent religions in any way, but this Jesus Mushroom theory is too far fetched.

They show hundreds of things related like religious pictures in which there are magic mushrooms.

That bread of life is actually a mushroom and blood of jesus the juice of this mushroom. etc etc...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc1-fwIinxM

Sorry... This was the one I watched. Two guys talking in front of a projection. 2004 version.
 
Top Bottom