Found.

We've been lied to, no hoax.
Maybe for a good reason. But, either way, we've been lied to.

After discussing Illiad and its contents, Socrates and his pals begin questioning the truth behind Homers story.
They came to the conclusion that God is perfectly simple and true both in word and deed, he changes not; he deceives not' either by sign or word, by dream or waking vision.

Homer said something contradictory. Here is a paragraph that Socrates believes contains a false message:

Thetis says that Apollo at her nuptials..
...was celebrating in song her fair progeny whose days were to be long, and to know no sickness. And when he had spoken of my lot as in all things blessed of heaven he raised a note of triumph and cheered my soul. And I thought that the word of Phoebus, being divine and full of prophecy, would not fail. And now he himself who uttered the stain, he who was present at the banquet, and who said this-he it is who has slain my son.

Also, they disagree that Zeus would send a lying dream to Agememnon.


They later agreed that verses that contradict what was established as an inconvenient truth should be abolished. This is especially true in the case of hiding the truth of death from man to improve his worth on the battle field.

Although the aim of Socrates was to make sure the next generation of Greeks come out a little closer to perfection, he intended to make everyone believe that the old truth is a lie. (isn't that what I'm trying to do?)

Here are some verses intended by Socrates to be ignored by future Greeks to remove their fear of death:

I would rather be serf on the land of a poor and portionless man than to rule over all the dead who have come to naught.
-Odyssey

Lest the mansions grim and squalid which the Gods abhor should be seen both of mortals and immortals
-Illiad

O heavens! verily in the house of Hades there is soul and ghostly form but no mind at all!
-Illiad

These verses used to make people believe the after life was bad, thus, people lived in dread.

After the verses were removed, hypothesized Socrates, people would no longer fear death, instead embrace it.

I am a great admirer of Socrates. This piece of text just showed me a little bit more of the social structure man has kept going all these long years.

Now, was Socrates in the wrong for what he intended to do?

If he sat back and do nothing with the knowledge that he had the power to make a generation of Greeks have no fear of death, that would make him a useless git.

If he removed these texts, he'd change Homers original message(s) of the after life and blind an entire generation of Greeks.

Dilemma of dilemmas.

Losing it.

I am a firm believer of secular ethics. I cannot ever say for sure if secular ethics is less fictitious than religion based ethics, but I find it much easier to believe.

It's forgivable that in the old days amazing unbelievable tales were spun with moral values to guide the people. In those days, people didn't know why the sun rose in the East and set in the West. They didn't know the sky was just gas and vapor.

NOW that we do know what these things are, I think it's time to stop believing in fairy tales and face the truth. I'm going to refer to a Star Trek story once again (before, from another blog of mine).

This story is about a space probe, which had only one task : collect information.

After it wore out, humans discarded it into deep space.

Aliens found the probe and decided to repair and reshape it.

This resurrected the probe, this time with a sentient mind.

But it was still a space probe, with the main objective of gathering data.

So, when it stumbled upon the humans traveling through deep space, it began analyzing them.

After a while, the humans realized it was sentient and began talking to it.

When they realized it was an old space probe, they told it that humans created it.

The space probe went mad.

So you see, I think the reason why we'll never find absolute truth is because we're searching for something we think we understand. And maybe we've already found our creator but cannot rationalize because that's not the image of God we have in our minds.

Like if I told you the Hydrogen atom is God. You would never believe me.

But every chemical can trace it's origins back to Hydrogen.

That makes every single thing around you, essentially Hydrogen in different forms.

Or what if I told you energy is God, since it cannot be created or destroyed?

Maybe the number 0 is God, because 0 divided, multiplied, added, subtracted with any number is equal to itself.

If I told you the Universe was God because it is naturally intelligent, like how all animals have adapted naturally.

None of these things may seem like God, because most people picture a great MAN in his place.
Because most say God shaped man in his image.

You have to remember, a man who has never seen God wrote that.

All in all. I think I'm comfortable just trying to understand all versions of everything without being biased.

Everyone thinks I'm a man of science just because I believe in science.

I believe in nothing.

Except secular ethics.

Science is just the best way to explain things.

Because a Hydrogen atom, if humans didn't name it would have no name.

Everything in the Universe, if left unnamed by humans, would have no name.

Carbon, wood, bear.

Everything, nameless before we came about.

Could it be, that we are shaping the Universe in our image?