those blacks

[______________hobbes]

First, I would like to say that I am very impressed with the posts here. Dominata has been an outstanding addition to this discussion.

Just to finish up with Ntrox (or Ntorx as lil nymph calls him),

Science and Agnostcism go hand in hand. Both aver a current state of belief based on the information available, however; both are willing to change based on new information.

For instance, Newtons laws to explain the motion of an object are correct in a gross sense. They predictably explain how a cannonball will travel through the air. Einsteins' theories did not disprove Newton, but fine tuned them as this became necessary when dealing with sub-atomic particles. So refinements will continue as our ability to measure events becomes more sensitive.

You state that it is more logical to NOT believe in something than cannot be proven than to believe in something that cannot be proven.

Well, what I am saying as an Agnostic, is that I am reserving the right to change my mind as new information is provided (Like actually seeing God on a chariot).

A real world example would be x-rays. In 1800, you would deny its existence because it could not be seen, felt, or demonstrated. Suddenly, by accident, its presence could be demonstrated to our senses by using photograph emulsion. It was there all along, but we simple could not perceive it.

So as an agnostic, I securely deny that God has the traits created for him by Man in organized religion. I am just open to the possibity, that just because my senses can't perceive him and picture cannot be taken, that a Creator may yet exist in some form.

Evolution is real and readily observable. Many religious people state that it only exists in the sense of minor modifications, and a cat never will become a dog.

The evolutionary time scale is so long (billions of years) that our minds have a difficult time grasping this. So look at something that is observable- language. There are seven Romance languages today, each distinct and unintelligible to speakers of the parent language- Latin. So 7 new discrete entities arose from a common ancestor.

But, how does evolution address creation? Well, it tries, but I have a scientic backround and so much is left to explain.(I can expand on this as necessary)

Just to finish up, Ntrox, you have elaborated on your negative experience with organized religion. I again state that your rather polar views are influenced by anger.

Until I can definitely understand why the universe even exists at all as a location for our creation and evolution take place, I will reserve the possibity of a creator (whom I doubt has a personal interest in me).

So, I say, reserve the right to change your mind, based on new information. Don't join the faith club and sell yourself short.

PS: If God created us all, who created God? See Hobbes at

http://forums.anarchy-online.com/sho...0&pagenumber=3

[ntrox1]

Hmm not quite right hobbes. The only criticism I have is that as an Athiest, I refuse to follow a god if he/she showed him/herself and proved existence. That is my definition of an Athiest. I do not believe in a god or religion, and would not follow them if they did exist.

My decision to be an Athiest is based purely on the above, which stems from my being forced to follow religion and blend into religious society, where to categorically state that god does not exist is frowned upon, and the norm is to assume the stance of a follower of "nothing". Its ok to state "god is love", "there IS an afterlife" and other stuff, however this is false advertising. Check out evangelists. Look at the lies being fed by the vicars and priests. They cannot prove they are right, therefore they should not say anything. Thats my view.

Oh, and I am not angry, nor is my belief/lack of faith borne of anger I live in my real world, I don't care too much for the ins and outs of science, what I know I know, what I don't know and don't understand does not concern me. Hence why gods have no place in my life.

Edit: strange how, in hindsight, my main is an MP. Odd choice..

[lilnymph]

Originally posted by Ntrox
I live in my real world, I don't care too much for the ins and outs of science, what I know I know, what I don't know and don't understand does not concern me. Hence why gods have no place in my life.

The problem with learning too much science, is you suddenly find that what you know, you dont know. Kind of makes me wish I hadn't done physics, and had studyed something else, atleast I problem wouldn't go through life so confused then hehe.

hugs

lilnymph

Oh, and if you want to know my view of god, read the Rama series by Arthur C Clarke.

[______________hobbes]

This is a great thread with a bad name.

Hobbes doesn't give a rollerrats ass about the game and it's mechanics, but he does enjoy the world-wide input about concepts and perspectives.

Somebody please revive this thread, and lets get to solving the worlds problems.

[__________THEDEACON!]

Originally posted by hobbes
Your points are again valid and I in no way meant that people couldn't have pride in their ancestory. Especially those who have made attempts to retain their culture by forming local societies.

In regard to Chinatown, people born here can live in neigborhoods where they can speak their native tongue, be raised according to Chinese tradition, eat traditional food, marry according to custom. Yes, they are removed from China, but still can imbibe their customs.

All of these aspects were taken from American blacks (inner city dwellings are largely black but are certainly not African cultural centers), in fact, what a persons culture was became obscured by mixing of tribes, the only commonality being black skin. Remember these people can from a continent, not a country.

Ask a black American to speak his native African tongue, ask him what people eat in his home country (soul food, right), heck ask him what their religion is (Probably all Baptists, right).

Imagine if slaves were brought from Europe- France, Germany, Spain, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland- and mixed together here- there only link being white skin. Mix thoroughly and add 200 years. What is their culture?

Seriously, on that tiny dot called Great Britan, we have very distinct cultural and religious differences. An Irishman would take offense at being called English and vice versa.

So what then is the culture of these displaced white people? Well, I guess they are white and came vaguely from Europe. Well, an Englishman is certainly no Kraut or Frog. An Irishman is no Spaniard.

The only commonality is the color of skin and that is not a culture. So two black friends here, identifying each other based on color, may have been sworn enemies in that vast continent of Africa or more likely their initial cultures were very different from one another.

Sure 9/11 has made us all closer, but I find the saga of American blacks a unique one. At one point there was a plan to create an African country and send them all back there. It was to be called Liberia- for liberty.

So freed blacks may have been living in this country, but not felt part of it due to the injustice. But now, over all these years, great strides have been made to create equality and many are yet needed, but this tragic event may serve as a turning point, where the black says "its not perfect, but this is my country and this will be the hertiege of my future generations", erasing all thoughts that they are just temporay visitors here, awaiting the day until they return home (where-ever that is).

I'm black and I've always felt a part of this country, as have every black person I know. You have to get to know us to understand us, and that means spending time with us. As an African American, I feel 'under the microscope' by many caucasians at times. Many caucasians ask me questions or make odd comments that leave me scratching my head in confusion, but I understand that many caucasians suffer from xenophobia (fear of anything strange or different) and grow up so separated from other races that you mean no harm by the words you say.

You're only better trying to understand us and while the wording you use is...odd to me (seeing as we're both humans and americans) I applaud you for making effort to bridge the gap. And trust me, whites and blacks are different sides of the same messed up coin. Both sides are racist, both sides are xenophobic, etc, but things have gotten better.

But one thing: We have, and always will felt a part of this country. Things are not easy being a person of color, because we are still often looked down upon by caucasians and in many cases, discriminated against. This leads to the "angry black man" syndrome that is commonly associated with african american males.

Over the years I have made myself exempt from all forms of discrimination by buying a house instead of renting and by starting my own company instead of struggling to get ahead in a predominately white workplace. So while I've always felt a part of this country, there has been many times that I've felt this country has not wanted me back.

on September 11, 2001, my wife and I were on a plane heading to Las Vegas for our first vacation in five years. Midway through the flight, our pilot made the announcement of the attacks. Now while any terrorism attack and the loss of lives a horrible thing, never, EVER in my life have I seen Americans unite, regardless of age, race, religion or creed as I did that day. I wish I had thought to take pictures as we all cried together. For once, nobody cared what my skin color was, because we were all Americans.

[______________hobbes]

"I wish I had thought to take pictures as we all cried together. For once, nobody cared what my skin color was, because we were all Americans."

Colorblindness- that was the exact point of my thread.

This is also why I like professional sports. I actually derive most of my pleasure from the temporary colorblindness that occurs when the world series is won, or the Superbowl, etc. You can see players of all colors embracing and it is so obvious from their expressions that the color of their team mate is the furthest thing from their minds.

[________________Fnch]

s

[______________Cronos]

Originally posted by TheDeacon/Xcelsius
But one thing: We have, and always will felt a part of this country. Things are not easy being a person of color, because we are still often looked down upon by caucasians and in many cases, discriminated against. This leads to the "angry black man" syndrome that is commonly associated with african american males.

see Micheal Moore's book, "Stupid White Men"

[Saletor]

I would just like to ask, and I am fully against any type of slavery in any form, but, would they be in America, A VERY great nation, had their ancestors not been brought over?

[engelstein]

Originally posted by Saletor
I would just like to ask, and I am fully against any type of slavery in any form, but, would they be in America, A VERY great nation, had their ancestors not been brought over?

How about you build a time machine and find out? Then you can respond to this post yesterday.

[______________Cronos]

Originally posted by Saletor
I would just like to ask, and I am fully against any type of slavery in any form, but, would they be in America, A VERY great nation, had their ancestors not been brought over?

i could write an essay on this but the short and sweet version is-

we wouldn't have had as rich a south, so they wouldn't have broken with the north and caused the civil war. also we would have had to import more cotton, and the north's industry would have built slower in the textile business.

[_______________Saint]

Funny thread. Especially concidering Odin owns you all lol

[BoomDoom]

Originally posted by Cronos


see Micheal Moore's book, "Stupid White Men"

Better yet, don't read it. Even the ultra Liberal New Rupublic thinks iuts liberal garbage. That's like John Ashcroft thinking you're too hard on criminals!

[______________Cronos]

Danger, opinions ahead from me and my quote

Originally posted by BoomDoom


Better yet, don't read it. Even the ultra Liberal New Rupublic thinks iuts liberal garbage. That's like John Ashcroft thinking you're too hard on criminals!

uh....well i read it and found that he supports everything he says with facts, and it was a top seller for many many weeks. i dont know what your referencing the "ultra liberal New Republic" to (a newspaper or such?), but its true that many newspapers gave the book rave reviews (see NY Times, SF Chronicle, other major ones etc. and if you dont know what i'm refering to then your in the same situation i'm in), while the more politically opinionated small timer ones try to critisize.

make an argument over whether a book is good, but dont give your unsupported opinion. i read so many books until just a couple years ago, so i know now when i've got a good one, cause i dont have the time for it if it's not.

and anything with an ultra stance on anything isn't a good source for saying that "stupid white men", with true facts of the US government's blunders is garbage.

and dont get me started on that "lets support Dubya cause he's our wartime president" crap.

[BoomDoom]

CNN Article on Michael "Communist Scumbag" More

Michael Moore does sometimes make me laugh, because some of his stuff really is funny. However the facts, as he likes to refer to them, in his books and movies tend to be one sided and/or misrepresented (although certainly not all, even crazy people are sometimes right). Michael Moore is just so far out there that I can't believe anyone could take him seriously. He's like Pay Buchanan, but on the other side of the aisle. Sometimes he makes me laugh, but he's just so far out there that i can't really take him seriously.

[______________hobbes]

You mean like Rush Limbaugh?

[BoomDoom]

Originally posted by hobbes
You mean like Rush Limbaugh?

A great example. Usually with Rush I start off agreeing with him, only to change my mind when he takes a topic too far. Once you go the extreme of either end of a spectrum you start to get into the crazy people. Michael Moore is one of those crazy people.

[______________Cronos]

i had a whole post going, but accidentally pressed backspace just as i was finishing. it was fairly big and i really didn't feel like writing it again. needless to say though if you read that article you'll see the problem. CNN is hardly an unbiased news source, and you shouldn't be swayed by their opinions. ever see a movie ebert and roeper gave 2 thumbs up and wonder WTF they were thinking? if i had the time i'd trace who owns CNN, and then trace the owner to a bush supporter or something. but i dont. maybe if i'm bored later i'll type it up again...maybe.

and i dont even like CNN that much either, see this guy's opinion, mostly true (with some cursing, not for the people that say their insulted by seeing **** or something)

[______________hobbes]

It really sucks to assemble something coherant and tight only lose it. I did what? Noooooo!

Anyway, long posts are too much for my ADHD. I like several short ones.

A comment on your link reminded me of my local news.

"Are deadly chemicals in the water you are drinking? Stay tuned for details on NightBeat at 11!"

Gosh, that kind of sounds like something I would like to know about now.

Oh, I get, it's all about gimmicks for ratings. Truth, integrity and reliability don't sell.

[BoomDoom]

FOr your information, CNN rolls to the left pretty often. I wouldn't call them a bastion of liberal thoughts, but they certainly lean to the left. So for a CNN book or movie reviewer to say something is too liberal that means something to me. Now, when they say leans too far to the right that is meaningless to me, since they're "too far to the right" starts about 50 paces to my left. Point is, when a liberal organization says its too left, then i know to stay away. TO be fair though, i read a little of the book. I might finish it sometime, but i doubt it. I spend so much time working i don't often get to finish the books i like, let alone the ones i don't like.