Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pioneer1

Where Does Your Inspiration Come From?

Recommended Posts

Cynique

"Come on now, Pioneer. Do you really think the West has any influence on Third World countries who hate us? Furthermore, the Middle East and the Eastern countries are very saturated with their religions."

The West still has tremendous influence on the Third and Developing world.

Actully the West have even MORE influence on the world today than 40 years ago because the Soviet Union is no longer around as competition.

Regardless as to how the citizens (or resident rather....because citizens actually have some say~so) of these nations feel about the United States, the LEADERS are in control of the economies and militaries and it's them who the U.S. does business with.

"And just because people are Atheists doesn't mean they have no ethics or morals. In addition to being a well organized segment of society and, unlike to a lot of religious hypocrites, Atheists are quite often people who have high morals and lofty principles and who love their fellow man and choose to lead the kind of lives that will benefit the common good."

I agree that atheists can have "ethics".....a means of determining what's acceptable and not acceptable in a given community.

But I don't believe that a true atheist can have "morals".....which is based on ultimate determinations of what is right and wrong.

How can man himself decide what is universally "right"?

His knowledge is too limited, subjective, and versatile to determine universal good/evil which is what morals are in their truest sense.

"Also, many scientists can reconcile their belief in a Supreme Being with their scientific positions. It's not that hard to accept that an eternal, omnipotent, omnisicent force is the Master of the Universe and therefore, among all other things, is the origin of what we call science."

Exactly!

That supports my point that most scientists DO believe in God.

But the rest of my point is that there seems to be some sort of agenda in Western Academia to promote the idea that education and enlightenment leads to atheism.

Delano

"Pioneer - There was a survey of scientists 80% and they were atheist

They thought the 20% that weren't atheist weren't rational. So even though the assume they see rational they aren't. The only rational position id to be an atheist."

I found out a long time ago that when it comes to educated Whites......

There is often a LARGE gulf between what they say in public and what they REALLY believe.

The same White female teacher who will go everyday to an innercity school and teach Black girls to be independant, that marriage isn't necessary for a healthy relationship, and to not waste thier lives trying to please a man.

Will drive back home way out in the woods somewhere and try to be the perfect wife for HER husban and raise her daughters to be the same.

I know many scientists are THOUGHT to be atheist.

Indeed, many want this image to be put out.

But how many actually SAY outright that they don't believe in any type of god?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pioneer check out this short video where several physical are asked a simple question:

Do you believe in God?

I'm not suggesting that these responses should be extended to the entire population of scientist, but their reasoning would be useful.

Also I think FAR more people, lie about believing in God than the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need to make a distinction between a Supreme Being and an Omnipotent, Infinite Force. Religion, which is an invention of man, has crafted "god" in the image of a person, making "him" either a petty, vindictive old man who doles out punishment, or a Mystical prophet who spouts riddles. And any one who judges people by the bible or other religious scriptures written by men is not qualified to be objectve. To say that an atheist can't be "moral" is simply an opinion.

In the big picture, there is no such thing as good or evil or moral or immoral or Satan or God. There is simply matter and anti-matter, negative and positive, darkness and light. The "good" and "bad" labels are constructs of civilization. But, as is proven everyday, these opposing energies co-exist.

And any scientist who cannot explain what came before the Big Bang, or what caused the spontaneous combustion that ignited it, needs to expand his vocabulary. The word "nothing" is inadequate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pioneer - I notice a discrepancy between what voters tell the pollsters and what they do.

Cynique - I am of two feelings about your last post. Supreme Being may be an Omnipotent Being. God and the Devil exist for some or somewhere.How can you be sure that you are not mistaken. How can or do you check your conclusionopinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it is interesting how the conversation went quickly from where do we get your inspiration to one of life's most fundamental questions, what is the nature of the universe and where do we fit in it.

I guess, fundamentally, the answer to that big question is indeed the answer to the original question; Where Does Your Inspiration Come From?

At various readings and lectures I've heard writers say their inspiration comes from the Lord, Our Savior, Jesus Christ, or spirits who speak to them or just the desire to make more money.

Religious folks will say religion was inspired, if not outright brought to us by a divine spirit. A Supreme Being or Ominipotent Force are indistinguishable to their God, or Gods, or for some, ourselves..

We all have some belief system. Some believe it is perfectly perfectly OK to kill someone else for something they have, that you want. Others believe this is evil.

Some entities, like governments, say something is evil, but take direct actions exhibiting exactly what they said was evil. Of course people do this too, but governments get away with it more.

If there is a universal truth -- it is anything but universally accepted, known or understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Delano, I said omnipotent "force" not omnipotent "being" in order to make a distinction between a person and a power, and my alternatives to the words "good" and "bad" are terms that apply to simple scientific principles.

If we're going to talk about what exists in the universe of a person's skull, then we are talking about inner space, not outerspace. Nobody can say anything for sure. But I can demonstrate certain reactions. Faith is blind trust in a belief. If you could snap your fingers and make the devil appear in the flesh, as a rebuttal to my extinguishing a lit match by squirting water on it, then you and I would be on the same page.

Yep, Troy, it does pretty much boil down to different strokes for different folks. And this is a subject that could be debated ad infinitum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy

Lol, that was a pretty convincing video on the atheism among scientists.

Although they start off pretty definate about not believing, when they explain thier "lack" of belief in detail it seems to go back to not believing in the Judeo/Christian idea of who God is.

Like most people in the West in general, most Western scientists start off believing in a false concept of God and when they realized that they were deceived.....many of them abandoned theism all together rather than doing dilligent research on the truth of the matter.

Should a woman never marry or trust a man again simple because her first husband cheated on her?

Cynique

"I think we need to make a distinction between a Supreme Being and an Omnipotent, Infinite Force. Religion, which is an invention of man, has crafted "god" in the image of a person, making "him" either a petty, vindictive old man who doles out punishment, or a Mystical prophet who spouts riddles. And any one who judges people by the bible or other religious scriptures written by men is not qualified to be objectve."

If you reject the idea that God is some angry old man riding on clouds, so do I.

Do you believe there is an Omnipotent Force in this Universe/Reality ?

"To say that an atheist can't be "moral" is simply an opinion.

In the big picture, there is no such thing as good or evil or moral or immoral or Satan or God. There is simply matter and anti-matter, negative and positive, darkness and light. The "good" and "bad" labels are constructs of civilization. But, as is proven everyday, these opposing energies co-exist."

If you hold the position of not believing there is a God then you just helped to prove my point that atheists can't really have morality.

You said in the big picture this IS NO good or evil or moral or immoral.

This believe that many if not most atheists hold illustrates my point that athiests can have ethics (man made rules governing human behavior in given communities) but they can't really have morals because they don't believe in ultimate good or evil.

Troy/Delano

I believe there are ACTUAL truths and UNIVERSAL truths.

Actual meaning they are true now but may change with time.

A good is example of the difference is language and mathematics.....

Language is based in actual truths as the meaning of words often change with time.

Mathematics is based on universal truths, 2+2 will always equal 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If an atheist and a believer act in the exact same way, Pioneer, then it's ridiculous for a person speaking the English language to say that what the believer is doing is moral and what the non-believer is doing is not moral because believers have a monolpoly on being called a certain word that describes how people act. And it's not how an atheist thinks of himself, it's how an objective observer would categorize him. A visitor from Mars wouldn't be able to tell the difference between two people acting just alike. If an atheist and a believer both reject molesting a child then what would an English speaking person call the atheist?

When I opine that there is no such thing as good or evil, it's because I am contending that giving words connotations is a function of society, but it goes contrary to science which simply deals with opposing forces.

I kinda believe that earthlings all came from the same source and are all a part of a universal intelligence. And that we don't know what we know. I also like the romantiicized idea of us being star children because we are made of the same elements as stars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pioneer mathematics is a symbolic language. They don't exist in the world. Were numbers discovered or created. Numbers are relational, you have never see a number only its symbol. There can be 2 (fill in the noun), numbers are adjectives. In a way words are more real.

The definition of morality comes from more, locally accepted customs.

Cynique - I agree there isn't an absolute good or evil except God and the devil. Which id just dropping an o, and adding a d.

I would disagree that the same behaviour has the same moral value.

For instance killing can be the same but the intent is important. The tricky bit is proving intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Delano, we have to agree to disagree. Instead of being adjectives, as you have decreed numbers to be, to me the devil and god are simply nouns that represent religious symbols. Since intent is difficult to determine, it would be hard to prove what the ulterior motive of not only an atheist is, but a believer as well. Religious folks can be the biggest offenders when it comes to being deceptive. And, of course, the reason Society has laws, is to prevent people from yielding to the temptations which, if everybody gave into, would lead to chaos.

This debate has degenerated into an exercise in futility; an ongoing clash of opinions which are not being changed. Ciao.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique

Sorry you checked out,

But you're still welcomed to read my response to your post to me as well as further commentary. Feel free to hop back in, lol.

"If an atheist and a believer act in the exact same way, Pioneer, then it's ridiculous for a person speaking the English language to say that what the believer is doing is moral and what the non-believer is doing is not moral because believers have a monolpoly on being called a certain word that describes how people act. And it's not how an atheist thinks of himself, it's how an objective observer would categorize him. A visitor from Mars wouldn't be able to tell the difference between two people acting just alike. If an atheist and a believer both reject molesting a child then what would an English speaking person call the atheist?"

Not actually.

An atheist and believer may behave in the same way but they're doing it for different reasons and THAT in and of itself is one of the key differences between morals and ethics.

Let me illustrate my point using theft leaving legal punishment out of the picture:

If a true atheist sees something that they desparately want but refuse to steal it, they're doing it for ethical reasons. They don't want to wear the badge of shame that comes from being known as a thief in the community.

However if a believer sees something that they desparately want but refuses to steal it, they're doing it for moral reasons because they see it as inherantly wrong because God said it was, plus they fear some sort of divine punishment or displeasure by God.

Now this is the reason why it matters........

The reason the believer has for not stealing (moral)is actually more effective and ideal than the atheist's reason (ethical) because since it doesn't depend on pleasing other human beings it will withstand any peer pressure that may from a break down in social order. It's a reason that LASTS, regardless as to what is going on in the environment.

In an atheistic society, take away the police and social order and you have a madhouse.

"I kinda believe that earthlings all came from the same source and are all a part of a universal intelligence. And that we don't know what we know"

Omnipotent Force/Universal intelligence/Original source = Supreme Being

Lol, are you sure you don't really believe in God and just don't know it?.....yet.

Delano

I guess mathematics can be considered a language, but I see it more as a measurement or comparison of subjects and objects.

Language is just a means of communicating ideas from one human being to another.

If you can do this telepathically you don't need language....but you'll still need a form of mathematics/measurement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am beginning to realize that I am dealing with 2 guys whose brains are wired differently than mine. I say it is a waste of time for me to discuss this particular point with you because I am coming from a different mind-set. I simply don't buy that just because a person doesn't believe in a supreme being that this makes him incapable of being sincere when it comes to not harming others. I don't accept that acting positive instead of negative has anything to do with religious beliefs. That's humanism. Or do I agree that anarchy would be the result of widespread atheism. Religion causes more wars and deaths and chaos than anything in the world!!

Our conflict does, indeed, involve language, which can be inadequate which it comes to conveying thoughts. And it is difficult for we 3 to resolve anything because everybody wants to define their own terms.

God, Allah, Yahwee, are man-made deities who I do not have in mind when it comes to a supreme intelligence. To me, a supreme inteligence is beyond comprehension and too awesome to be explained in words, and certainly not something that can be personified and condensed into a father figure who's the main character in fables and parables.

And the more I exchange ideas with you 2 paternalistic males, the more I discern that this is a battle of wills, not intellects. If you could reach through your computer screen and pat me on my head, I think you would, while cloaking yourselves in your condescending sense of "irrefutable" wisdom. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can communicate telepathically you don't need language. However it can be difficult to translate into language, or at least that was my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly agree with Cynique.

Del is it your communications device that is forcing you to post each sentence on a different line, or are you doing that for effect? In any case if you could avoid that it would be helpful.

Del when you communicate Telepathically does one personal biases disappear too. Cause I doubt I could handle the complete thoughts of those closest to me.-- and I sure would not want to share mine :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy - like so many things ut looks normal to me.

I'll try and explain it again but differently. When you have a feeling. You are aware of what it feels like. However when you try to communicate it words don't quite capture the subtlety or complexity.

I am not certain but it may be the same with telepathy.

I am not certain about the one line.

So I'll stop posting from my phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique

"I simply don't buy that just because a person doesn't believe in a supreme being that this makes him incapable of being sincere when it comes to not harming others."

Like the shady Black man used to say in those 1970's tv shows:

"Wait, wait, wait, hold on ya got me all wroooong........"

Lol, I don't hold the position that not believing in a Supreme Being (which can't be said of one who still believes in a "Supreme Intelligence") prevents one from being sincere about not hurting his fellow man.

They can certainly be sincere.

The very emotion of empathy that God put in most men allows this to happen.

But hell, even animals can feel empathy as any pet owner knows.

Just like morality goes deeper than merely man-made laws, morality goes deeper than emotions.

It's held up by multiple pillars such as conviction, the desire to please the divine, the inate sense that "ultimate justice" beyond this world will await one.

But if I'm making you feel guilty about defending atheism, then I'll stop right there.

All

Telepathy is basically the transferring of thought from one person's mind to another's.

We know light travels, why not thought?

How can one look at the modern marvel of the wireless internet and still NOT believe in telepathy?

Scientists have known for well over a century that telepathy exists, even Thomas Edison.

And this takes us right back to the original subjects of the thread of where does one's inspiration come from.

Because if thoughts and ideas can be transfered, cannot this be said about what so many artists call "inspiration"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pioneer, I think the prospect of getting caught and being punished right here on earth is a much greater deterrent for most people than "the divine" or some "innate sense that ultimate justice beyond this world".

Obviously God is not deterring, or even a factor in Obama's decision to use flying death machines "drones" to kill people "sustain collateral damage" in the Middle East.

Sure, I believe telepathy is possible, I just have not seen any evidence of it. Even Del's description of his experience is rather nebulous.

I don't count people who "claim" they can do something as proof. I don't, for example, believe that anyone can communicate with the dead. Sure it is quite lucrative to convince others, willing to believe, but I don't think anyone has managed the feat.

So while anything is possible, some things are very unlikely.

Of course understanding where one's inspiration originates a worthy goal, so that you can get more of it whenever the mood strikes you. I just don't think the odds are very high inspiration comes from your recently departed aunt Gladys, or Zeus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admin

You said that you don't believe anyone can communicate with the dead.

I don't know you personally but based on the content and demeanor of your posts, I'm gonna take a wild guess and assume you're OVER the age of 30, lol.

(Pioneer1 smiles gently)

Now Troy, I haven't met too many people over the age of 30 who haven't had ANY sort of communication with deceased loved ones in one form or another.

Almost anyone of us who has lost a parent, sibling, friend, or any relative/friend close to use has either seen and talked with the actual spirit of that individual or done the same in a "vivid" dream that we KNEW was more than just a dream.

Are you gonna tell me you've experienced nothing?

Nada?

Zilch?

Come on bro.....lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't hold the position that not believing in a Supreme Being (which can't be said of one who still believes in a "Supreme Intelligence") prevents one from being sincere about not hurting his fellow man.

They can certainly be sincere.

The very emotion of empathy that God put in most men allows this to happen.

But hell, even animals can feel empathy as any pet owner knows.

Just like morality goes deeper than merely man-made laws, morality goes deeper than emotions.

It's held up by multiple pillars such as conviction, the desire to please the divine, the inate sense that "ultimate justice" beyond this world will await one.

But if I'm making you feel guilty about defending atheism, then I'll stop right there.

Puleeze, Pioneer. You, and your god-complex are so emeshed in your ego-driven pontificating that you think you speak the gospel. You don't. You don't know anymore than anybody else on this subject. You're just parroting what is comfortable for you to believe. It's increasingly obvious, that you cannot wrap your brain around anything that rejects your premise. Let me clarify that the difference between me and you on this subject. I express a sentiment, but my ultimate sentiment is that I don't know the unknowable. Your position is: This is what I believe because I know everything and I am irrefutably right.

And not only content to reject challenges to your stifled way of thinking, you apparently fancy yourself a psychiatrist, supplying a motive for my stance. If guilt was a factor, then why wouldn't I simply relieve my guilt by embracing religion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admin=Troy

Yes I'm almost 21 years past 30 Pioneer.

I have no recollection of speaking with someone who has died. Sure I've dreamed about people living and dead, but I never assumed this had anything to do with actually interacting with these people -- especially the dead ones.

I've had dreams that I could l fly too -- but I don't assume I was actually flying. Of course I've read about people who have experienced the same thing, but claim they can control it and experience actual events, thousands of miles away. Until this is proven in a experiment (a very easy one to setup) I don't believe this either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique

"Puleeze, Pioneer. You, and your god-complex are so emeshed in your ego-driven pontificating that you think you speak the gospel. You don't. You don't know anymore than anybody else on this subject. You're just parroting what is comfortable for you to believe. It's increasingly obvious, that you cannot wrap your brain around anything that rejects your premise. Let me clarify that the difference between me and you on this subject. I express a sentiment, but my ultimate sentiment is that I don't know the unknowable.

Your position is: This is what I believe because I know everything and I am irrefutably right."

Uh huh......

Well, I think I'll just overlook the little temper tantrum that made up the first 75% of your post and address the more reasonable of it.

I've never claimed to know "everything"....but I do KNOW that God exists.

Just because you admittedly don't know this, you shouldn't assume that no one else does or that it's somehow "unknowable".

By the way, the other day YOUR position was:

"In the big picture, there is no such thing as good or evil or moral or immoral or Satan or God. "

http://aalbc.com/tc/index.php?/topic/1837-where-does-your-inspiration-come-from/page__st__40

That sounds like a pretty definite statement for someone who takes the humble position of not knowing the unknowable.

"And not only content to reject challenges to your stifled way of thinking, you apparently fancy yourself a psychiatrist, supplying a motive for my stance. If guilt was a factor, then why wouldn't I simply relieve my guilt by embracing religion?"

If my way of thinking was stifled then I wouldn't have changed my religion based on research that I've done nor would I continue to read and study multiple religions and philosphies found around the world to further my enlightenemnt on theological and spiritual matters.

What I reject is combative intolerance wrapped around ignorance.

If you don't know whether God exists or not, why do you contantly argue with others over the matter?

I didn't say you felt guilty about not belonging to a religion.

You can take that straw-man and dispose of it how you will.

I suggested that perhaps you felt guilty about defending ATHEISM

You don't have to embrace a religion to believe in God you know.

When a person continuously makes references to............

An Omnipotent Infinite Force.

A Supreme Intelligence

A Universal Intelligence

An Original Source

While at the same time argues:

"In the big picture, there is no such thing as good or evil or moral or immoral or Satan or God. "

Then turns around and after all that arguing and says that they really don't know one way or another

......all within a 3 day period.

I don't know if a psychiatrist is necessary but I think a good therapist is in order.

Somebody to sit you down and help you organize your theological thoughts, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy

Have you ever heard of Project Star Gate?

http://www.remotevie...ry_military.htm

The U.S. military has invested millions of dollars and decades studying Remote Viewing and being able to gather information by telepathy.

It's hard to imagine that a practical institution like the Pentagon would invest so much money and time in a fairytale dreamed up by the Brothers Grimm.

Further, there are millions of people who have mastered the art of Lucid Dreaming (being able to control your dreams).

The proof is there; now whether you want to accept it or not is a different matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pioneer I'll checked out the Project Star Gate site briefly there is too much for me to try to consume right now.

Would you be kind enough to summarize the findings or provide a link that does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Pioneer, with a nod to your cherry-picking "rebuttal", I don't claim to be consistent in my sentiments. I consider endless possibilities about life and death and the wonders of the universe and I favor some scenarios more than others. But I can bring myself to concede that views different from mine might be true, and I do not dismiss the idea that there is no universal intelligence but that random activity emerged from a void, - unlike you, who presumes that what you believe cannot be questioned. You think you have a hot line to "heaven" and this god who exists in your mind and who is apparently your personal confidant, has anointed you to tell others what you consider the indisputable truth. That's why I called you condescending. I was disappointed in you. I hate to resort to cliches, but you seem totally incapable of thinking outside the box. Your mind is finite. You are not a free thinker. I can't believe you've studied other religions and philosophies and are so steeped in absolutes. You cannot conceive that the god of your belief may not exist. And why not? Because your faith is apparently your security blanket. It doesn't seem to occur to you, who are so quick to diagnose others, that you need a god to cling to. And you could benefit from a few sessions on the couch, yourself.

We have all agreed that language can be a stumbling block particularly when people like you deign to tell someone what they mean when they use a word or phrase. Since you want to imply what I mean when I say "universal intelligence, etc." I'll tell you what you mean when you say "god". To you, god is a divine almighty personage who is responsible for the bible or the koran or the torah, and is the Father of a Christ figure and interferes and injects himself in the affairs of men. That's not what I have in mind when I say a "universal intelligence/force/source". Since you're such an "expert" on where I'm coming from, why can't you discern that my mind-set is compatible with the definition of an agnostic? As for atheists, I don't need to defend them. They are perfectly capable of defending themselves. ( and who, besides "religious" people feel the need to experience guilt about defending them?)

Now if I have misinterpreted your concept of god, then consider that turnabout is fair play.

BTW, rather than combative. I prefer to consider myself amazed by smug people who, without proof, consider themselves right, and anyone who questions their infallibility, as ignorant. SMH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique

"Well, Pioneer, with a nod to your cherry-picking "rebuttal", I don't claim to be consistent in my sentiments."

Do you know another word for people who are inconsistent?

They are called "unstable", sometimes confused.

They believe in one thing today and something else tommorow and something entirely different next month. You can't nail down exactly what they believe which allows them to brag about "never being wrong".

"- unlike you, who presumes that what you believe cannot be questioned. You think you have a hot line to "heaven" and this god who exists in your mind and who is apparently your personal confidant, has anointed you to tell others what you consider the indisputable truth. That's why I called you condescending. I was disappointed in you. I hate to resort to cliches, but you seem totally incapable of thinking outside the box. Your mind is finite. You are not a free thinker. I can't believe you've studied other religions and philosophies and are so steeped in absolutes. You cannot conceive that the god of your belief may not exist. And why not? Because your faith is apparently your security blanket. It doesn't seem to occur to you, who are so quick to diagnose others, that you need a god to cling to. And you could benefit from a few sessions on the couch, yourself.

We have all agreed that language can be a stumbling block particularly when people like you deign to tell someone what they mean when they use a word or phrase. Since you want to imply what I mean when I say "universal intelligence, etc." I'll tell you what you mean when you say "god". To you, god is a divine almighty personage who is responsible for the bible or the koran or the torah, and is the Father of a Christ figure and interferes and injects himself in the affairs of men."

Might I suggest some sites where you can download the proper software that may help you with your PROJECTIONS:

http://www.freedownl...ion_Graphs.html

http://www.freedownl...ion_Charts.html

http://www.planware.org/exlshot.htm

Obviously you love projecting ideas and concepts on to people that they haven't said in order to attack those fabricated ideas.

During this back and forth, I've simply acknowledged the existance of an Almighty Supreme Being. I haven't detailed what I believe to be the function or characteristics of this Being.

"That's not what I have in mind when I say a "universal intelligence/force/source". Since you're such an "expert" on where I'm coming from, why can't you discern that my mind-set is compatible with the definition of an agnostic?"

Because an agnostic is one who isn't sure whether or not there is a God and doesn't spend time trying to find out.

You said:

"In the big picture, there is no such thing as good or evil or moral or immoral or Satan or God. "

That was a DEFINATE statement from one who seemed pretty sure (on that day atleast) of their beliefs, lol.

Last week you stood boldly declaring:

"unlike to a lot of religious hypocrites, Atheists are quite often people who have high morals and lofty principles and who love their fellow man and choose to lead the kind of lives that will benefit the common good"

This week you sat at the table with your head down mumbling something 'bout:

"As for atheists, I don't need to defend them."

Obviously you CAN'T defend atheist....lol.

Hell, you're doing a pretty lousy job trying to defend yourself right now.

"BTW, rather than combative. I prefer to consider myself amazed by smug people who, without proof, consider themselves right, and anyone who questions their infallibility, as ignorant. SMH"

Oh Cynique...I'm so proud!

Obviously you've looked back over your previous posts, and after discovering that YOU said:

"Religion, which is an invention of man, has crafted "god" in the image of a person, making "him" either a petty, vindictive old man who doles out punishment, or a Mystical prophet who spouts riddles. And any one who judges people by the bible or other religious scriptures written by men is not qualified to be objectve."

......the amazement of your arrogance has startled even you and no doubt started you on the journey of self reflection!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lame try, Pioneer. And no cigar. In an attempt to shore up your disjointed repetitive rants, you are grasping at straws, supplying your own definitions, putting your warped spin on my views, concocting your flawed analogies, desperately attacking the messenger instead of the message. I don't know why you are convinced that I have a problem with defending atheists. I actually dig atheists and I don't think there's a stigma attached to liking them. All the ones I know are deep, reflective, honest people who embrace Humanism, - a philosophical school of thought you continually choose to ignore because it is the anti-thesis of pompous religious self-righteousness. And I identify with agnostics, fully aware that your definition of an agnostic is strictly your definition. Anybody who spells as badly as you, can't be taken too seriously when it comes to being detail-oriented. :lol:

You arrogantly project yourself as the final authority on abstract concepts like "morality" and "ethics", and you pee on yourself because I cited the objective versions of "good" and "bad". Why does this pique you? Because while I may be opinionated, you are dogmatic, quick to impose your tenets on others. And my critique of religion was an opinion that's shared by many. I'm certainly not the first to voice it or will I be the last. You are not as well-read as you profess to be. :huh:

As far as defending oneself goes, you never refute the things I say that expose you as the prig that you are. In giving you a taste of your own medicine, I said that my interpretation of your concept of "god" may be presumptuous. - like yours was of mine. But you conveniently ignored this acknowlegment, while sanctimoniously portraying yourself as a victim of my "projection". Get outta here! In accusing others of what you yourself are, you call me a know-it-all. Puleeze. I can admit my shortcomings, but confined by the strait jacket of your ego, you think you have none. You have met god, and he is you! Jeeze. :o

As I previously concluded, arguing with you is a waste of time because it's not enlightening. All I've learned is that you come across as some one who is used to being deferred to. You present yourself as being "worldly" but you are actually "naive". :rolleyes: I'll stick with indulging the soaring curiosity that liberates me to contemplate, unlike you, who have surrendered to the stagnant tunnel vision that spawns the rigid, narrow mind which leads you to mistake your inflexibility for stability.

But you're an amusing and well-intentioned guy, so knock yourself out. And this is a forum for debate, so preach on. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inspiration comes from anywhere and everywhere. It's a matter of keeping eyes, ears and mind open for directions to take, plus some inner drive that says "You gotta write." It's also keeping in touch with your past. Which is why I wrote a novelette, which I recently put up on Kindle. And I'm looking for feedback from readers of this forum. You see, I'm white and what I wrote about was the white view and experience back when I was growing up in the 1940's and '50's. The focus is a black maid who lived with us. That was long before anyone thought of the term "African American." Which is why I call my novelette "The Negro in the Basement." A lot of guilt and innocence is attached to my recollections and feelings, but I need to know the reaction of the AA community. You can get it for only 99 cents on Kindle. I've attached a link. If you decide you want to read it, please let me know how it affects you, positive or negative, and did I come close to any sort of relevant truth. Thanks.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Negro-Basement-ebook/dp/B00AMC71RQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357327525&sr=8-1&keywords=negro+in+the+basement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique

Whether I'm right or wrong, atleast I'm stable and consistent with my beliefs.

You're wrong for sure because you carry several opposing beliefs in your head....one of which MUST be wrong.

Let me remind you how you got yourself in this situation in the first place, lol.

You began this back-n-forth with your IN-tolerance of other people's beliefs.

First you argue:

"And just because people are Atheists doesn't mean they have no ethics or morals. In addition to being a well organized segment of society and, unlike to a lot of religious hypocrites, Atheists are quite often people who have high morals and lofty principles and who love their fellow man and choose to lead the kind of lives that will benefit the common good. "

Then turn around around on the same page and argue:

"In the big picture, there is no such thing as good or evil or moral or immoral or Satan or God."

How the hell can atheists be moral and good when you claim there really IS NO morality or good?

You aligned yourself with agnostics and atheists, then turn around and speak of an Omipotent Force and Supreme Intelligence that you admit you are confused about.

You're confused and discombobulated, lol.

My position has been clear and constant through out this thread.

I believe in a Supreme Being.

I didn't assign any function or religion to my beliefs in this thread, I simply stated my beliefs and you took that as an opportunity to defend atheism and criticize religious people as hypocrites. And even start some sort of gender-war invoking "paternalism".

Your admitted ignorance and INtolerance caused you to attack traditions and beliefs that you have little working knowledge of.

In general...........

I think Black people in America and world wide should be extremely careful not to let themselves be sucked in by various atheistic/ amoral/immoral philosophies started by crafty people whose intentions are to seprate them from their Creator.

In the end of your Earthly life when you have to account for everything you've done and your Maker is questioning you on your strange unfounded beliefs, those same "wise men" and their "science" whom you put all your faith in won't be their to help you.

Easyg1

I know "negro" is a term that was used in the time era you said you grew up in but I'm curious.

Did you feel any guilt about using the term "negro"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×