Black Spirituality Religion : How Do Atheists Feel About Non-Abrahamic "Religions"?

Based on what I read from the link you provided:

For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world.

This is the very core of Kemetic Theology. I mentioned this in my earlier posts, regarding Shu and Tefnut, but you seemed to have ignored it.

Also, the anthropomorphized aspects of divinity are symbolic. The Divine Presence in the universe manifests itself thru and as Man, because Man is the vessel by which these emanations are best understood.

Africans and other indigenous cultures have always used animal totems as a part of their spiritual systems. This is not new. According to Metu Neter (which I mentioned, but you also ignored) these animal headed/bodied Deities represent the based level aspects of Man's Spirit/Soul. The Mammalian and Reptilian parts of the brain.

I think you're being a bit generous in some areas, but I appreciate that you're at least trying to answer some questions now. That's a start to an actual discussion.




I don't have a problem with science overall. White folks did not create science, contrary to popular belief. But how it is gone about, is in fact largely European. Are you familiar with aspects and practices of ancient African (and even Asian/Oriental) Science?

Because the "White" version is what you seem to readily quote and cite here. Hawking, Einstein, Spinoza, etc. Where are the ancient (and even contemporary) Black scientists that you would cite? Diop and such? Imhotep?

If science has gone mostly European (something I would've phrased differently but I agree with the basic premise of at least) who would I cite about the modern understanding of things that previous scientists and great thinkers did not know about? Even for White people who contributed to science centuries ago, their ideas might have been altered as understanding improved. Should I just simply go back and cite those people just because or should I work with something that's closer to the modern understanding if we're not talking about something historically relevant?

When I cite someone's work with science it's not because their skin, it's about the content of their ideas. Sometimes I didn't even cite an individual like with the standard model but that was still dismissed as completely theirs, when other civilizations and peoples were a part of that slow building up of its content.
 
my impression that homie has made the decision that only white guys thought is valid. all else is suspect.
his mind is not open. (even though the mind is our connection to the spirit world) when ones mind is closed there is no use to continue.
he rejects each and every black description of the universe. he always will.

I don't consider spiritual systems actual, accurate descriptions of the Universe. That's the only real difference. Everything else is an imagined slight because of this disagreement.
 
If science has gone mostly European (something I would've phrased differently but I agree with the basic premise of at least) who would I cite about the modern understanding of things that previous scientists and great thinkers did not know about? Even for White people who contributed to science centuries ago, their ideas might have been altered as understanding improved. Should I just simply go back and cite those people just because or should I work with something that's closer to the modern understanding if we're not talking about something historically relevant?

I'm honestly not certain I understand what you are asking here. But I also think that is because I also don't think that you don't fully understand what I am asking of you, either.

When I cite someone's work with science it's not because their skin, it's about the content of their ideas. Sometimes I didn't even cite an individual like with the standard model but that was still dismissed as completely theirs, when other civilizations and peoples were a part of that slow building up of its content.

When I was in the NOI, we used to have a saying:

"The White Man isn't the Devil because he's White. He's White, because he's the Devil".


White people, by and large, tend to have a linear, "concrete" way of thinking. They don't grasp the abstract very well--at least not without having a tendency towards an "eccentric" (drugs and such).

This has played out historically. And I'm not talking about just recent history (re: centuries, as you said), but also millennia.

Ra Un Nefer Amen stated in his book NOT OUT OF GREECE, that the European efforts towards mastering mathematics was an exercise in folly, because math is only useful when applying it to the abstract {paraphrased}.

That's why the Greeks never really built anything using the Mathematics that they "created". And, as I stated earlier (which you ignored), their so-called "Classical Era" collapsed in a mere few centuries.

Meanwhile, the Kemetic view (which is succinctly outlined by your Spinoza) was the theme of African thought, which led to thousands of years of physical, mental, spiritual, social, and technological progress in Kemetic society. None of which have contemporary European societies (From the Greeks and Romans, all the way up to now) have been able to successfully and consecutively duplicate.

And again, here is where I would ask, why is it that your references are only the "Greatest" of white minds, and not any Black (or people of color) ones, whether historical or contemporary?

If I (and others here) are telling you that all the ideas that you look to (Spinoza, for example) can be found in your own heritage, why do you not cite them instead of Spinoza, Hawking, and the like? To African Centered people such as those you are obviously conversing with, you have to know that this won't fly over well with the likes of us.

If, as with the Standard Model example, other civilizations were involved in the process, why are they not being cited here?
 
I don't consider spiritual systems actual, accurate descriptions of the Universe. That's the only real difference. Everything else is an imagined slight because of this disagreement.

I think you are putting your carriage before the horse. Further, it sounds like you are mixing and matching inductive and deductive reason as it suits you.

You've made some HUGE generalizations about African spirituality as a whole here, and yet you evade the Q's when you are confronted with them. All the while, wearing the cloak of "Science" as your shield.
 

Donate

Support destee.com, the oldest, most respectful, online black community in the world - PayPal or CashApp

Latest profile posts

Savarnas Beauty Spa
It's a lot going on and I know I have not been here for a long time but it is about to change.
Back
Top