Racism Still Exists; How Far Have We Really Come?

:lol: You cease to amaze me.........:lol: :lol: :lol: Non Sequitur or Ignoratio: translation - ignorance to the issuse. :lol:

First, any good Atheist will understand the relationship (notice the emphasis) between the finite and infinite. Great minds are skeptic - good Atheist are skeptical(again, notice the emphasis)and understand that Reality cannot be found expect in one single source; because of the interconnection of all things. Notice: this IS the relationship between the finite and infinite.

Also, Buddhist Philosophy, is a form of atheism sort of speak. He does not make claim to God or Allah and does not proclaim being omnipotent, though, even Atheism is a Religion; it wants to define its relationship infinitely to the finite. This is so because a person without Religion is like saying there is a person without a soul. He may not know he has Religion, just as a person my not know he has a heart, but, it is no more possible for a person to exist without Religion, than without a heart. He will cease to exist, thus, any attempt at self-improvement lies within one's soul, which is interconnect to the infinite.

Finally, I never make my experiences Reality, and only apply any theory to the highest probability, the only "types" who do that are hypocrites and think in black and white terms. Principia Ethica.!!!!!!

 

With that, I am making a point that any attempt of self-improvement starts with the metaphysical properties of the relationship with the finite and the infinite, because before you can improve the situation around you, must improve yourself first.

 

I personally think you are conflating religious "soul" with "conscience" and that is patronising to people without faith. It is possible to have a deep conscience and have no interest in finding a greater religious truth: indeed, some of the best and kindest people I know think in this way. Your view is just as simplistic and black-and-white as you are accusing me of being.

 

Your arguments leap from the falsity of one position to the Truth of its contrary without considering qualifications, middle ground, compromises or alternative positions. Moral or Ethical Judgment derives out of some constitution; surely, it is not something conceived through thin air. Your argument also fails to the test of logic - you can not even destroy the metaphysical principles of my argument. As I stated before, everything develops and differentiates, and there are laws governing this process. You try by eliminating too much too quickly without considering my position. How do you believe Goodness, Right Action, Prosperity, Ingenuity, etc, etc was conceived!? Now that I made you hit a dead end, you want to "lash out" by wanting to destroy the rules governing this process. YET, I am the one thinking in black and whites terms!? If moral rectitude was indeed conceived through Religion then your assertion is false.

Perhaps the scope of this topic has gone beyond your knowledge. My sincerest apologies Madam Miss B. But I do wish to hear your position regarding the intuition of love.

 

I'm afraid I can't even see the metaphysical principles of your argument - it's all just words, words, words in the air, to try and convince me that religion is the basis upon which all Goodness and Right action is founded, which I have already rebutted. And I'm afraid I really can't contribute to the discussion on love: I simply can't understand your logic in the first post, and dont' have enough knowledge of Freudian concepts to join in your discussion with Sardonic. I have my own beliefs about love, of course, but they are rather more based on solid, real experience of my own and others than theories in the air.

 

Yes, and now there goes your mental laziness because a man challenges you to think past your sense. Typical!

 

"Because a man"... :lol: why is it always about gender with you? What would it matter if you were a man or a woman, simply because you happen to be using some very long words to conceal a not very logical concept, and because you happen to have read more Freud than I have? (which itself is debatable, but I don't have a very full knowledge of Freudian theory - feel free to elucidate me)

 

The scope goes beyond Freud's theories, beyond Atheism and Buddhistism , Darwin's and David Hume's theories into the metaphysical of the Cosmos, and yes I know Freud's and Darwin's theories like the back of my hand and have a full grasp of each and every one of their concepts - Can basically recite their shit within my sleep. It is basically always a gender war with your kind, its a complex a psychological disorder....ya know Freud talks about this principle.

 

My kind? What is this? I don't even know what you are talking about now, except you've put me in a little box with a label on it and that seems to be that. I know some fearsomely intelligent people but none that takes themselves so pathetically seriously as you seem to!

 

First, any good Atheist will understand the relationship (notice the emphasis) between the finite and infinite.

I presume here, although it's not clear, that you are talking of the infinite in a theological context, so in fact you are referring to the binary distinction between god/mortal or divine/earthly etc etc. Otherwise, you would appear to be talking about maths, which isn't really what the topic is concerned with.


Great minds are skeptic - good Atheist are skeptical(again, notice the emphasis)and understand that Reality cannot be found expect in one single source; because of the interconnection of all things.

Reality cannot be found EXCEPT in one single source? What does this mean? Do you mean that religious truth can be found in only one source? Do you mean the meaning of life can be found in only one source? Reality is quite evidently a subjective notion from person to person based upon experience, otherwise how would mental illness have quite the grip that it does?

Notice: this IS the relationship between the finite and infinite.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say here because the first premise was unclear.

Also, Buddhist Philosophy, is a form of atheism sort of speak. He does not make claim to God or Allah and does not proclaim being omnipotent,

Fair enough, but I knew this.

though, even Atheism is a Religion; it wants to define its relationship infinitely to the finite.

Atheism isn't a 'religion', it's a blanket term to identify a common absence of belief in any god: in fact I was led to believe that empirical knowledge was valued more highly than finding a theology.

This is so because a person without Religion is like saying there is a person without a soul. He may not know he has Religion, just as a person my not know he has a heart, but, it is no more possible for a person to exist without Religion, than without a heart. He will cease to exist, thus, any attempt at self-improvement lies within one's soul, which is interconnect to the infinite.

But this is all, in fact, your own opinion, isn't it? As I have already written, you have conflated soul with conscience; goodness with religious awareness. And that is very patronising, unless you can be more clear to me that by "Religion" you mean a connection with nature and to living beings around you, rather than a search for an infinite creator or any type of organised religion.

Finally, I never make my experiences Reality, and only apply any theory to the highest probability, the only "types" who do that are hypocrites and think in black and white terms. Principia Ethica.!!!!!!

This simply doesn't make sense - the syntax is very weak and I can't understand what you are trying to say.

 

I have finally awaken the beast!? Melikes this side of you now.

1) Reality in itself is NOT subjective, just those trying to define it. I have mentioned before our senses deceive us, we define Reality through our sense, this is "naive reality."

2) Atheism has to be a Religion because it attempts to explain itself to the infinite, this not being "God" as we know it, but Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Wave Structure of Matter. And a GOOD Atheist will explain in position just in that manner. No. I should say a knowledgeable one because it goes beyond a personal God.

 

I have finally awaken the beast!? Melikes this side of you now.

You, and a bottle of wine, which I'm slowly demolishing this evening

1) Reality in itself is NOT subjective, just those trying to define it. I have mentioned before our senses deceive us, we define Reality through our sense, this is "naive reality."

So if we can't trust the reality which our senses offer us, what can we say is reality? After all, to be described by humans it must be experienced by them - that sends us in circles. Do you mean that each person should take 'reality' on trust as being perceived only by a greater truth and beyond our ken?

2) Atheism has to be a Religion because it attempts to explain itself to the infinite, this not being "God" as we know it, but Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Wave Structure of Matter. And a GOOD Atheist will explain in position just in that manner. No. I should say a knowledgeable one because it goes beyond a personal God.

That's fair enough, as I began to suspect, you're using "Religion" as a wider term than I first thought.

 

Our arguments always follow this circular pattern: I dislike something you say and challenge it, you bring gender into the mix, I can't leave the argument alone because enjoy the thrill of the fight, eventually we break it all down into logical pieces and you tell me I'm not that bad for a girl after all.

*Sigh*

 

1) In my opinion(note: of my experience and knowledge) if we are to describe Reality then it must be founded on real things which exist and cause our senses, not on the naive real representation of our senses. I know it sounds contradictory to what I said in the previous post, even empirical knowledge is not well suited to describe Reality. I say that Science can be misleading because both of its truths are deceptive. The aim of Science is to demonstrate logical deductions from (a priori) Principles exactly correspond with our sense of the real world from (a posteriori) observation and experiment. With observation and experiment it is always changing.....So I guess you can say no Reality is absolute. Which is why I talk about the highest probability within the greatest common denominator. Its a tricky little fucka! Reality that it is......shit, I will never be able to deduce it, know that for sure. :lol:

2)Many Atheist will claim they worship no supernatural being, therefore, in no way Atheism can be a religion. But, they will try to outright prove there is no infinite being, I had the pleasure to debate with some of highly intellectual kind, it's something that's inevitable inexplicable even they take the position of Agnosticism.

 

I don't know Miss B, do you fancy me!? That is not good if you do, because I am taken, you just may ruin my life - she quite the controlling type also, has the naivety of beautiful youth and a little psycho and blonde(I can't believe I always get stuck with the blondes, even though that is not my preference); but, she is no women. I think you can take her though, then we can run off together.

 

I think you are projecting here, 7.

 

I was wondering when you would finally realize this.

 

There's obviously a love match here in my opinion...

1. Opposites attract
2. You attract what you are
3. You are the kind of company you keep (7!)

 

Haha, that made me laugh - although you've said it to about three different people this week!

Seven...I haven't time to look at the whole of your post above right now, however as to the other, yes of course you are always in my thoughts but in case you haven't noticed one of the 10,000 posts I've made about my other half, here's a link to the thread to refresh your memory:

http://www.whitewomenblackmen.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2667&start=30

:lol: