It is the intellectual non-believer who finds the true meaning/value of morality on one ground at any rate because their own morality is not out of fear of punishment or in light of reward. A heaven or a hell to go to after you die or some other dogmatic rubbish that should not be a ground for morality.
'blind faith. nothing wrong with it. you can feel it, and that is all you really need'
yes, you blockheaded dullard. Nothing wrong with it at all. Nothing wrong with a guy driving a car-bomb into a school bus of children in his ‘blind faith'. and people believing whatever they are told rather than questioning everything they are told.
Bah!
Have an original thought yourself!
We do not believe everything Nietzsche said or even half of it! He is just a good example of a great human being who questioned everything and broke dogmatic barriers stifling the learned world. C. Jung and Freud both openly acknowledged their indebtedness to him in the field of psychoanalysis.
I suppose it is not good to read Jung and Freud either? Or anything, I suppose? Indeed these great minds did not go back and read the greats and stand on the shoulders of the giants to see ahead of all before them?
Living close to great minds is the best education! Do not be fooled by this dullard!
Dullard attacking learned people for supposedly not having ‘original thoughts’ with regurgitated dogmatic trite!
Go and read some philosophy and start to think philosophically - start to think FOR YOURSELF
I find the woman you are attacking with this non-sense ten times more intelligent than you and an asset to this conversation and thread.
oh, and, please, on the blind faith rap!
STOP SUPPORTING WHAT IS DESTROYING OUR WORLD!
Another dogmatised fool.
Is there anything this woman is saying that has not been heard over and over again?
Dullard!
So shall it always be with such people - don't even bother to argue with them! Let us continue with our discussion!
He or she who says that there is nothing wrong with blind faith is blind. Go unto the ditch!
I love Nietzsche's strength as a philosopher! He is the first philosopher to really be against denial of the will to live and FOR will to life! To power.
He is very strong in his views, however - and even claimed Zarathustra the most profound book in mankind's possesion . . .
But I love the guy! However, one could never stop disagreeing with Nietszche
I am sure you have see this one, but just in case:
Oh . . . thank you. I thought i might be being a bit harsh.
Appologies if I offend anyone.
I read Nietzsche's Anti-Christ recently and was startled by something he said:
'There was one Christian, and he died on the cross.'
Anyone who wants the shock of their life should read Nietzsche and see a philosopher who just took a hammer to all dogmatism and opens your eyes to a lot of rubbish that we allow ourselves to be fed.
But don't agree with everything he said because he was a bit mad - and in fact went mad!
But where is it all going to lead once we all belive in God but have no religion?
Ah, then the revaluation of all value must come in to play . . .
People must understand the value of morality in itself and not as an obligation to God
And also, hell . . . to love those who hate you is inhuman!
Better to steer well-clear of those who hate you.
Not even love can reason with hate - et al The Christ!
Again, it depends on your defintion of a 'good guy'
Why do men presuppose what woman are looking for in them?
One sometimes wonders if they falsely manifest what they think woman are looking for to then make it an attraction and end up repelling them instead . . .
And i suppose a woman who looks for a hot, healthy, intelligent, strong confident rich guy is a 'bad woman'.
hahahahah.
Woman know what is real AND what they are looking for.
There is something about Kenyan woman . . . they take their country with them.
Kenya is beautiful; and the woman have wonderful personalities!
I love kenya!
You are hot girl! Damn!
Sorry
Back to God.
Maybe the question is not so much does he exist, doesn't he exist - but what we're going to do to stop dogmatism from blinding people - the world - to the truth about life!
Even if there is a God, you're on your own and he ain't watching over you and the ones you love and the little things. That's YOUR job.
In a flower? In the movement of a river or body of water? In the way people are? In birth, death, the universe? In the wonders of existence? The horrors? The Hopes?
You can call what you see 'god' but you can call it 'fgbdsjkf', too.
And still, the child starves and the fat man eats himself to death on the otherside of globe.
Chaos seems to rule here, and order is our dream. Orders seem to have come from our dream, from our ideal, from what even as a believer in a supreme being i would have to come down from the highest elevations to which my mind can be put to belittle as much as call 'god'
In conclusion I refute the fact that the alpha male and alpha female are anything other than the ultimate man and the ultimate woman; but that ‘true happiness’ (a fundamental misconception, for no such thing exists!) is subjective: you as an individual (individually constituted) will seek accordingly due to your strengths and weaknesses. But the one fits all herd-morality is rubbish! Don’t try to condition the world to your weaknesses nor expect it to conform to them. We, the strong of mind and opinion and the life-affirming beings, will not follow and will not allow the weak to condition a strong world to allow for favouritism to weakness. Do not affect to be so delicate in this hard, tough, competitive world! Go out and get the best food or get in the back of the line at the soup kitchen. Nature does not allow it, and to mankind it is a compromise he has made based on his compassion and sympathy. All credit to him. I only have empathy for my fellow man. Equality is communistic: everything equal in a world of strong and weak, wise and foolish, tall and short, beautiful and ugly. A wishful ideal! Even the great Socrates once wined that the power should be given to the wise by the strong, and then the world would be saved. What an idealist! Power must be taken; fought for, attained at the highest stake; it will never be handed over by the strong to the weak so they can have a go with something they didn’t attain.
Please know that I respect all opinions on this board and all refutations of my opinions, and find individuality of view intriguing and dogmatic thinking tiresome and stagnating. The meek will inherit the earth, etc, and any refutation of the laws of nature laughable.
Also, Wilikis, I find your posts the most intellectually engaging on here – all credit to you – please do not feel utterly offended that I refute them. I am an individual against herd-thinking and herd-morality and I don’t believe what applies to one applies to all OR SHOULD. What applies to the weak applied to the strong; what applies to the intelligent applied to the fool – et al. The strong man rejoices in his strength. The intellectual in their intellect. The beautiful in their beauty. I, for one, would not begrudge them this! But that fools should rejoice in foolishness? And weak in weakness? And sick in sickness? And the unhealthy in poor health? In what is instinctively not to be praised? The weak in their weakness? - I suppose they should, because it means they will inherit the earth – after all, this is only fair. That the strong have the initiative to strive and struggle by the sweat of their brow to win or lose what is good in life but the weak sit back and then inherit it all. Credit to the opinion – that is your ‘individual’ view! But it is my opinion that it is dogmatic and rests on untruth and wishfully-pragmatic idealism. I respect all opinions and do not disrespect them just because I disagree with them.
No! To think like this is not only to be subjectively bias but to prejudge a person or people without prior investigation on the grounds of one’s own physical endowment (or lack thereof) and I look down on the utter subjectivity of this bias opinion.
I see a beautiful girl and she is stunning and beautiful, and I want her because she is stunning and beautiful, and I will NOT presuppose that because she is stunning and beautiful – indeed an ‘alpha female’ – it means she will be shallow or hollow or have no character or personality and is by her true nature ‘ugly’ inside. A gorgeously beautiful . . . ‘harlot’? A harlot by implication of what – being gorgeously beautiful? I am repulsed by this! Sickened! Come on! What utter stereotyping trite! Sounds like a rejects rap on beauty to justify his rejection by it and its supposed worthlessness. THAT is the justification of the genetically inferior man who has already condemned himself, has no self-confidence left and has a load of excuses to try to win precisely such a woman on the grounds that if such a woman will seek an alpha male (as her instinct is inclined to) it will be a disaster but if she seeks him – in his big coke-bottle glasses and with his church-dogmatised mind - she will find what she is looking for in a relationship. A true individual! I wear glasses myself, by the way. And I have been rejected plenty. I am being objective here.
If I want a ‘good’ woman I should go for the girl in the corner with the braces, the big nose, the poor-posture and the flat chest. I should go AGAINST my instincts? Because she will be ‘a nice’ person – but a beautiful person will not – because she’s beautiful and stunningly so? And that will make her by association of physical beauty ‘a bad person’. ‘ugly’ a ‘harlot’. And these are – what? Warning signs of the lack of inherent good qualities to what, Wilkis . . . ‘THE INSTINCT’?
Ha-ha. That outlook is almost tantamount to nihilism to a free thinking mind and a life-affirming spirit. To de-evolution! I live in affirmation of the laws of nature and I find myself pleasantly unsurprised by the way the world works and how to operate in it to attain success and happiness in so far as I can, according to my own strengths and weaknesses, attain them.
Wilki, I think you've got a chip on your shoulder, my man.
Naturally every long-term 'single' man thinks he's a good man and then wonders why he is not 'taken' - maybe he needs to start wondering if his idea of a 'good man' is the same as a woman's idea of one.
On the inverse, you sit at a Starbucks and see all the girls your instinct says are good with all the guys a single girl's instinct says are good.
So the naff guys and the naff girls left over get together and naff out - and they're the good ones with all the good qualities, are they? Hmmm . . .
Natural selection - people forget about nature and that humans are animals!
What is 'good' is strong, healthy, rich, genetically prime, virile - practically giving off pheromones.
What is 'bad' instinctively has always been what is weak, unhealthy, carrying bad genetics, sickly . . . singled out for extinction and thus 9 times out 10 ten SINGLE.
Also, my friend, on 'the good guy rap' - happiness equals instinct.
Strong, healthy, intelligent, genetically prime, stand out, unique - constitutes 'good' to the instinct.
Nice, kind, caring, soft and gentle: are feminine qualities men project at woman expecting them to be attracted to - what? Their own good inner qualities?
Woman wants MAN. Man wants WOMAN.
All that other rubbish is moral rubbish contrary to true human nature and nature itself and is designed by the weak to save the weak by making the stronger less appealing to the genetically prime partner.
And to presuppose that someone possessing these qualities - the alpha male - cannot be a good partner and everything a woman dreams of - a good man -
is perhaps YOUR dream. All due respect.
The strong, wealthy, intelligent and rich, rule. And have always been the most attractive. Have always constituted 'good' to the instinct.
How many woman walk down the street with a beggar if they are not beggars themselves? Life is instinct; those who go against instinct for the ‘moral good rap’ go to it to their own folly and against their own instincts. Let them not complain! Indeed it will be called ‘good’ – by the beggars!
But the strong and rich will frown at the beautiful woman with beggar! Just as the beggar frowns in contempt at the rich man with the beautiful woman. At the unfairness of life!
All the rest is fact AFTER the fact. Fact, then, AFTER instinct! Qaulities, then, that are revealed later and are not initial attractions to a woman.
You attempt, then, to attract women on the grounds of secondary attractions because – what – they are greater than what initially attracts a woman? You attract her initially and then you affirm the attraction – you validate it – with the secondary attractions.
What many single men seem to lament is the fact that hot woman are not with average guys. And would then come up with a phoney rap that says if a woman really wants a good man she should seek the average man!
Hah! How noble . . . how noble of the average man! He must truly be ‘the good man’ that woman is looking for!
There is no good man; good is subjective – it’s a matter of subjective (personal) opinion.
But instinct, instinct is the objective (impersonal) truth.
EastbayRay Forum Posts (781)
RE: God...fact or fiction?
It is the intellectual non-believer who finds the true meaning/value of morality on one ground at any rate because their own morality is not out of fear of punishment or in light of reward. A heaven or a hell to go to after you die or some other dogmatic rubbish that should not be a ground for morality.Reason asserts the better principle.
I agree with you, and I am a believer in God.
However, I am a deeply non-religious believer.