Page 4 of 4 <1234
Topic Options
#37357 - 04/04/10 12:31 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Zophos]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Lets try again......

 Quote:
"Even worse, if you've accepted false ideas uncritically, and close your mind to anything that contradicts them, you won't recognize true ideas even when the evidence is overwhelming, and you'll sabotage your own capacity for learning. [This is what you are doing.]"


This is not what I am doing. Just because I look young in my image doesn't mean I don't know what I am talking about. I have been a Satanist for more than 25+ years at this point. I have learned, experienced, questioned, and forgotten more than you will ever know. That's not a put down, that is a fact. As I stated before, just because an idea/believe is not proven to YOUR satisfaction does not make it untrue. As with most Christians, no amount of evidence will ever make them believe that Jesus and company do not exist. In regards to the white rabbit bit, citing examples, people, their names, their experiences, won't make a difference to you because in the end, you don't know them, or would deny it.

 Quote:
"Human beings do not develop the intellectual capacity for abstract thought until between ages 12 and 15 ..."


Is this your full experience of every child? Most Satanists who claim to the idea of born not made have experiences, knowledge, and witnesses that predate the listed 12 and 15 to whom they are in regards to Satanic principles. You don't want any form of personal experiences listed as possible evidence, but if a person catches on fire they burn. Do you need to be set on fire to understand that people burn?

Fine, fine, I wrote more clearer. It doesn't change the fact that you talk in circles and back track and then change the meaning of your debate. Due to this, sometimes, you are just not clear in your presentation of your ideas.

 Quote:
"Satanism as codified by Anton LaVey is atheistic, and I did nothing but say so in the passage you cited. Any "Dark Gods" are purely symbolic and do not exist. This is an elementary dogma of Satanism."


I like how you changed it from my comment in regards to the use of Satan in rites to a comment made into the question of belief/dogma in Satanism.

Calling me naieve, doesn't change the fact that you now agree with what I said.

I already knew about the Jack London /Desmond bit regarding Might is Right. I thought that since you brought up that point, it was something you already knew. I guess I was wrong, you didn't know the finer points of what you were talking about and had to google it.

You did question who I am in regards to my statement of sour grapes on your part, it's written in your post. Whatever, that doesn't matter. I know who I am.

\:\) I like how you just prove me right in regards to the comment regarding the Sixth Satanic Rule. If you are going to use one of the rule or lists from the books, then you must be open to the fact that yours will not be the only valid interpretation of it.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#37361 - 04/04/10 02:00 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Morgan]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
 Quote:
This is not what I am doing. Just because I look young in my image doesn't mean I don't know what I am talking about.

Your age and appearance are irrelevant to me or this argument. I would say what I have to you even if you had a foot growing out of your chin.


 Quote:
I have been a Satanist for more than 25+ years at this point. I have learned, experienced, questioned, and forgotten more than you will ever know. That's not a put down, that is a fact.

No, it's presumption, since you know virtually nothing about me.


 Quote:
As I stated before, just because an idea/believe is not proven to YOUR satisfaction does not make it untrue.

And just because you continuously assert it against valid scientific evidence does not make it true. My claim retains the upper hand. "That's not a put down, that is a fact."


 Quote:
In regards to the white rabbit bit, citing examples, people, their names, their experiences, won't make a difference to you because in the end, you don't know them, or would deny it.

I don't have to deny it. Personal experiences do not qualify as evidence for a universal affirmative, and whether or not I know the people in question makes no difference. I could cite examples, people, names, and experiences of individuals who claim to have seen a ghost, far more than you could cite examples of your case, but that brings it no closer to being true or defensible as a claim. An argument from personal experience, as Dan_Dread mentioned, can be used to justify almost anything.


 Quote:
Is this your full experience of every child?

No, and it doesn't need to be. I need only show that abstract thought is not something humans are capable of from an early age for my points to hold, and I have done better than that.


 Quote:
Most Satanists who claim to the idea of born not made have experiences, knowledge, and witnesses that predate the listed 12 and 15 to whom they are in regards to Satanic principles.

Even if that's true, it comes no closer to proving a universal affirmative. You seem to be missing or ignoring the fact that humans are not like atoms; all members of the class 'human' do not behave in the same way. First-person ontology is impossible to represent by any epistemological standard, since by definition its existence is experiential in a purely subjective way. No matter how many personal experiences you have heard, the real possibility that they do not account for all cases exists whether you acknowledge it or not. Neither I nor anyone else have independent access to these experiences, which makes it impossible for me to verify by any criteria the claims that you're making from them. If twenty people signed a statement affirming that they had all seen a fairy whose physical attributes they all described identically, in what way could you possibly prove or disprove the claim based solely on that? I can't stress the point enough: that is not how evidence or evidential reasoning work. My own satisfaction or lack thereof has nothing to do with it.


 Quote:
You don't want any form of personal experiences listed as possible evidence, but if a person catches on fire they burn. Do you need to be set on fire to understand that people burn?

Isn't that an argument in my favor rather than yours? If I know the chemistry of what would happen if I were set on fire, then I have evidential reasons for believing it even if no one in history had ever been set on fire. A personal experience, in other words, would be a useless example in point, since my actual mode of knowing it comes from knowledge of chemistry. I have never seen or spoken to someone burned by 6M hydrochloric acid, but its chemical properties are known to me, meaning that I don't need to in order to recognize it as a fact. Your argument is backward.


 Quote:
I like how you changed it from my comment in regards to the use of Satan in rites to a comment made into the question of belief/dogma in Satanism.

Oy and vey. "What about the ritual chamber in regards to Dark Gods and personal creative drama as a motivating factor." Since that statement was made in a passage which claimed that I rejected the use of rituals as un-Satanic, which I never did, I responded as best I could to the limited spectrum of plausibility that I could deduce from your words.


 Quote:
Fine, fine, I wrote more clearer. It doesn't change the fact that you talk in circles and back track and then change the meaning of your debate. Due to this, sometimes, you are just not clear in your presentation of your ideas.

Obviously I can't speak about your subjective grasp of what I've said (no snide remark intended), but I disagree that I talk in circles or change my meaning. I reread most of our discussion and have tried to be charitable to your position on my clarity, but I really see nothing of the kind.


 Quote:
Calling me naieve, doesn't change the fact that you now agree with what I said.

I don't.


 Quote:
I already knew about the Jack London /Desmond bit regarding Might is Right.

So did I; I was referring to the dates of death for each person. You asked why LaVey wasn't sued, and since Might is Right was written in the late nineteenth century, my hunch was that Desmond and London were dead by the time LaVey was born, and that indeed was the case.


 Quote:
You did question who I am in regards to my statement of sour grapes on your part, it's written in your post. Whatever, that doesn't matter. I know who I am.

Wonderful. Enjoy.


 Quote:
I like how you just prove me right in regards to the comment regarding the Sixth Satanic Rule. If you are going to use one of the rule or lists from the books, then you must be open to the fact that yours will not be the only valid interpretation of it.

You have perhaps the most astonishing penchant I have ever seen for putting words in my mouth. I never said that more than one interpretation was not possible. What I said was that I was referring to LaVey's theft from someone whose ideas he valued and admired, while you followed it up with an exegesis of the rule in the context of Christianity. What, I ask you, have the two subjects to do with one another?


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37365 - 04/04/10 04:44 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Zophos]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
I'm tired of this. Thread locked.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
Page 4 of 4 <1234


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

Generated in 0.015 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 16 queries. Zlib compression disabled.