Page 3 of 7 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#113431 - 07/12/17 08:44 AM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3841
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

But this ignores the other question: Why?

What created the OU


Non sequitur.

There's no reason to assume anything created it.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#113432 - 07/12/17 09:12 AM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

No. There are two basic questions concerning existence: How and Why.

To those that feel that everything has it's place and requires answers. Speaking only for myself, I learned very early on that not all answers are provided by inquires.


 Quote:

In the case of the OU (including those parts of the OU which constitute the physical human body), the "how" has been resolved by science: the totality of Natural Law.

Science methodically seeks answers to fundamental questions but that's not the same thing as providing resolve.

 Quote:


But this ignores the other question: Why?


As a child it never occurred to me to question why reality is the way it is, I was more interested in answering why man creates such irrational answers, like a conscious creator designing the thing and we little people are supposed to live not only thankful but in fear of questioning it.


And getting back to my point of everything in its place, you have this tendency to bucket Atheists into one basket with all these neat little descriptors. Does it ever occur to you that it may not be a prescriptive term? That many people didn't buy the narrative and remained open to other possibilities, if not satisfied with never knowing at all?


I wonder why, at your age, you are still grappling with this. Is it because you have one foot in the grave and are preparing to meet your maker? Not a shot at your struggle with Cancer per se but rather these things tend to resurface when people fear death. I've been clinically dead and didn't come back thinking "OMG I had better sign up!"


Edited by SIN3 (07/12/17 09:12 AM)
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#113439 - 07/12/17 05:56 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: SIN3]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Sin, your comments remains me of:

 Originally Posted By: Emily Jessup, Altered States
Your trouble is you’re still a religious freak. Everyday life, the human condition has no reality f0r you, because it’s uncertain, imperfect, transient. You have to have some great, immutable truth. You’re still looking for God’s truth, any truth, even a godless truth as long as it’s ultimate, absolute, permanent, everlasting. You’re a Faust freak who’d sell his soul for the great truth. Well, human life doesn’t have truth. We’re born screaming in doubt, and we die suffocating in doubt, and human life consists of continually convincing ourselves we’re alive.

Of course it's not necessary to ask the "why" question. NL/OU is as it is, and the necessary thing from a practical standpoint is the "how". Assuredly most people don't confront the "why" becauser they think it's unanswerable (which it is in terms of the NL-limited scientific method). Or they arbitrarily reject it as atheists or agnostics. Or they accept a religious-nonsense story for it.

While I have been asking "forbidden questions" all my incarnation, you're right in that I didn't really go for the throat of "why" until I had BOTH feet in the grave in late 2015. I knew what I had ultimately discovered, but had not yet put it down in a cohesive writing. Assuming I had perhaps a few days to go, I got it down and published it as MindStar, which I am satisfied gets the point across to readers capable of grokking it [from feedback, reviews, etc.].

That's why, in its Preface, I characterize it as "written by a dead man". I was quite surprised to survive its publication, at least temporarily. After my second cancer operation the surgeon commented that I should have croaked a week previously.

Anyway I'm gruntled with it and am cool with taking off anytime now. It's there for those who are interested and capable; everyone else can ignore it with my blessing. \:\)

I've raised the "why" question here because I assume that persons seriously interested in Satanism are bugged by it - not content to just amble through incarnation in a careless haze.

So if Dimitri or you or anyone else here would prefer to dodge the question, that's your prerogative. I'm just echoing Jules Verne in Journey to the Center of the Earth:
 Originally Posted By: Arne Saknussemm
Descende, audas viator, et terrestre centrum attinges. Kod feci.
[Descend, audacious traveler, and you will reach the center of the Earth. I did it.


_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#113441 - 07/12/17 07:10 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 751
Loc: Oregon
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
One can believe they understand Nietzsche but not necessarily 'get it', then presume to correct others, live by some quasi-Nietzschean code and then act as if reading Nietzsche is a requisite of Satanism - it isn't.


*Its a great point, but most people know this, and 'Official' Satanism is frowned upon these days for being too hokey-pokey and not being serious enough, just as LaVey did to other practises in his time.

*I think it all boils down to human nature, how ideas are built up, destroyed and then re-constructed from pieces of the rubble, just to get back up, rinse and repeat. That's a little summary of human behaviour...

Sounds pretty Satanic now that I think about it.

@Aquino: What do you say to why and how being one in the same?


Edited by Creatura Noptii (07/12/17 07:40 PM)
Edit Reason: Replacing text.
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#113442 - 07/12/17 09:14 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Creatura Noptii
I think it all boils down to human nature, how ideas are built up ...

See "Thought Architecture" in my [iMindWar[/i].

 Quote:
@Aquino: What do you say to why and how being one in the same?

Obviously they're not identical. W identifies source & purpose, while H describes the result and its functional mechanisms.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#113445 - 07/13/17 01:41 AM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3125
So I ask what the question is and suddenly I'm dodging it?
Ain't you being weird...

So your forbidden question is "why".
I'm not going to indulge into apologetics and starting a response with "because..". The reason thereof is very simple, things just happen. I can analyze and dissect issues to the very core and explain mechanisms in great detail but this would be a useless endeavor in this case.

The answer is quite simple: causality meets (human)egocentrism.
You, like many others, are coping with the struggle why things are happening as they do now. An unwillingnes to accept things can happen without reason. It is very hard to accept that kind of premise if you're used in thinking in egocentric terms.

Yet sometimes... shit happens. There's nothing more to it.
To keep on asking questions is a learning endeavor until it gets straight into the silly zone (generally where gods, angels and demons start popping up and meddling into affairs).
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#113446 - 07/13/17 08:59 AM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Creatura Noptii]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Creatura Noptii


*I think it all boils down to human nature, how ideas are built up, destroyed and then re-constructed from pieces of the rubble, just to get back up, rinse and repeat. That's a little summary of human behaviour...

Sounds pretty Satanic now that I think about it.



Only insofar as one is willing to embrace it with intellectual honestly, pretty sure it's the among the reasons LaVey honed in on pretentiousness. It's human nature sure but it's annoying as fuck.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#113450 - 07/13/17 01:16 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Dimitri]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
things just happen.

Randomly, chaoticly, sure. But the OU is refined, precise, complex. Consider the mechanism of just the human eye, much less th entire, integrated body. Consider the complexity and uniqueness - and I daresay aesthetics - of a hummingbird. To attribute this to accident is absurd - just the desperate fallback of humans who cannot emotionally tolerate the notion of supernatural intelligence & purpose.

You have plenty of atheistic company, and even more agnostic. You're welcome to stay chained in Plato's Cave as long as you like. ;\)
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#113451 - 07/13/17 02:30 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3841
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Wow.

You haven't spent 5 minutes of your life reading even a general overview of how evolution works have you? I've read that identical thing from countless Christian creationists.

Here's a hint;there is absolutely nobody in the sciences claiming any of it is 'accidental'
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#113452 - 07/13/17 02:59 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
entropicmomentum Online
stranger


Registered: 08/07/12
Posts: 44
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Consider the mechanism of just the human eye, much less th entire, integrated body. Consider the complexity and uniqueness - and I daresay aesthetics - of a hummingbird. To attribute this to accident is absurd - just the desperate fallback of humans who cannot emotionally tolerate the notion of supernatural intelligence & purpose.


Are you seriously positing irreducible complexity as a serious argument for the existence of an intelligent designer?
_________________________
We're soaked to the bone in the blood of the innocent.

Top
#113453 - 07/13/17 03:42 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3125
Want me to explain the historical evolution of eyes?
I can start from the very first interaction of light and the various chemical processes it took for the very first photoreceptors to come to be. From then on it's a "cakewalk" towards the more complex structures.

Besides, the human-centrism is shining. The human eye, although complex, is still considered a mere calculator when compared to the supercomputer of the mantis shrimp.

The notion of "emotion" implies lack of reasoning and logic. An indication of a clouded mind and spirit who no langer can uphold its own. If emotion is the last thing to rely on it will imply you have reached your intellectual treshold.


Edited by Dimitri (07/13/17 03:43 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#113460 - 07/14/17 04:10 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
nobody in the sciences claiming any of it is 'accidental'

You're confusing existence with natural selection. The latter is the result of "survival of the fittest"; more versatile "freaks" survive, reproduce, and etc. The weaker, less adaptable beings die out.

However this does not explain the existence of extremely unique, highly complex creatures. Like the hummingbird. And indeed the vast differences between birds generally. Natural science is content to assign birds to dinosaur ancestry and drop it at that. There weren't too many different kinds of pterodactyls. How are you going to get them into hummingbirds, flamingos, falcons, Wood ducks, woodpeckers, etc etc? "Accident" is prima facie absurd, nor environment. These are dismissive excuses to avoid the dilemma, and to keep your high school science books comfortingly simple.

We are all aware that academic scientific dogma insists on Atheism as an axiom. Therefore questions which annoy this orthodoxy are ignored or conveniently rephrased. This is the rule, not the exception, in academia; it's what gets you tenure.

It's safer and more comforting "inside the box". If you want to stay there, that's understandable. But mere;y throwing your feces at anything outside is a function of fear and ignorance, not concern for truth.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#113461 - 07/14/17 04:35 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Dimitri]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Want me to explain the historical evolution of eyes? I can start from the very first interaction of light and the various chemical processes it took for the very first photoreceptors to come to be.

You are dodging the question of the origin of these phenomena & interactive functioning. That's the essence of the problem - not how, once, they exist, they can be subjected to various situations affecting evolutionary natural selection.

You're showing me an Erector Set and telling me how the contents can be fitted together in various ways. I'm asking you where the Set came from and why its pieces happen to fit together in those various ways.

I am not busting your chops; you're where I myself was a long time ago. It took me more time than I care to remember to even see that I was in a swamp, much less to start floundering out of it.

Here's a grappling hook from the Temple of Set Reading List:

17E. The Neck of the Giraffe: Darwin, Evolution, and the New Biology by Francis Hitching. NY: New American Library (Mentor) #0-451-62232, 1982. (TOS-3) MA: “The recent attack on accepted Darwinian theories of evolution and natural selection by religious fundamentalists has prompted a few brave natural scientists and biologists to question some of the ‘sacred cows’ in the field of evolution. Evolution as a principle stands up to the most exacting tests, but some of the Darwinian sub-assumptions are found not to. There are ‘gaps’ in the fossil record between major species - for example, between early invertebrate sea creatures and ancient fishes. And between fish and amphibians. And between the reptile & the mammal jaw. How could the hyper-intricate human eye have evolved through ‘intermediate stages’? Hitching then launches into a careful discussion of mutation, genes, and cellular coding, after which he analyzes the best arguments the creationists have to offer. While dismissing creationism as ridiculous, he agrees with British Museum palaeontologist Colin Patterson: ‘They [the creationists] didn’t have the right answers, but they certainly asked a lot of the right questions.’ In addition to a 4-page bibliography of technical works, Hitching provides an additional 4-page annotated bibliography of introductory reading, keyed to points brought out in the chapters of his book. If you intend to think or talk about evolutionary theory, this book should be considered TOS-1; if you don’t, then TOS-3.”
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#113462 - 07/14/17 04:51 PM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: MA
We are all aware that academic scientific dogma insists on Atheism as an axiom.


I beg your pardon? Science is a method for seeking answers, it's a method, not a dogma. You're really confused these days Mr. Aquino, a lot of this reads like the incoherent ramblings of a man looking for his maker, to perhaps make apologies.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#113471 - 07/15/17 01:26 AM Re: Satanism v. Christian Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3125
I can offer the explanation of that phenomena.
Otherwise I wouldn't be telling I can give you a brief summarization of how the very first eyes were formed (starting with the chemical processes that happen when light hits).

It's not because you fail to understand, of have never learned about, a variety of subjects that others do so to.

Where it concerns your quote, I'll answer with a proverb.
"A fool can ask more questions in an hour than a wise man can answer in seven years".

Or in short: it doesn't matter how many questions are posited if you lack the mind to follow reasoning. Which is exactly the thing you confessed a few responses back.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
Page 3 of 7 <12345>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.032 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.