Atheism on the Rise Part II

[JDHURF]

[Gnostic]

Number one. Since you refuse to take anything I say in opposition to your views on N or any other philosopher, I doubt any discussion with you on the topic would be positive. If I said Hegel or Kant or anyone else was a great philosopher, I get the uneasy feeling you would simply say they were terrible and use really bad interpretations of them to make your argument, so there's really no point.

Secondly, you now have reduced yourself to insults, and that definitely ends the discussion for me.

Later.

[JDHURF]

[Gnostic]

[The Comrade]

are we arguing that nietzsche wasn't a woman hating, pseudo-racist?


how is that even arguable?

[Gnostic]

[JDHURF]

[Gnostic]

There are now feminist expositions on N which look at it far more positively, whole studies pointing toward a better understanding. The supposed misogyny that he's connected with is definitely at times hard to refute in any other light. No argument there. N isn't quite my "idol". I have a very hard time actually with most of his work. I have never intended to be his apologist by any means. Way too "liberal".

Much of N does though definitely have another purpose aside from crass, blatant and rude gender bashing. If you would have an open mind to it, or attempt to see beyond that crassness for just some further insight, you may see how he is couching such "decadent" expression into a deeper meaning, as I had mentioned with several examples before. I'm not a N scholar so I'm blowing alot of rehashed bullshit into the mix of course, but I have honestly come to see alot of N's didacticism as having subtle or hidden meaning, or sometimes actually in the case of many of those harsher bursts of eloquent vitriol he spews at women, that seeming act itself is meant to showcase the stupidity of such a state in man. And I wonder how a woman like salome could have tolerated N intimately. Or he her.

There are alot of variables and if any philosopher of any age has had more controversy over his true intentions and thought, it was him and continues to be.

I guess we can just leave it at that. Or I can.

[Zeugma]

[spacemonkey]

Could you expound on the "manipulation"? Of what sort? Just curious.[/quote]
That is the part where alien intervention eons ago ( possible dna manipulation of neanderthals or whatever) may have took place. Its also possible they stood before us, and let us call them God. Much like Cortez stood before the Inca, and let them call him God. To many things were seen and recorded by our ancestors for there to be nothing to it. But like I said, no proof, just total speculation on my part.[/quote]

I just can't buy any alien theories. It's just far too implausible and incredible. And not a shred of physical evidence.[/quote] Actually there is plenty of evidence. Its in about all the ancient religious texts that refer to Gods decending from the sky. Why would they all record that if it never happend? But it all comes down to personal interpitation. To some, all that stuff is nothing more then the ancient version of marvel comics or whatever. But in the end, to each their own.

Gnostic, this is a response to you post on page 10, at 12:05 am. I screwed up the cut n paste so the quotes dont show as the should. Sorry about that.