Page all of 6 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#37863 - 04/19/10 11:26 AM Prove it
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Every now and then this site gets people who maintain that Satan, as an actual living entity, exists. I invite all who make such claims to prove it.

Disclaimer: Do NOT try to use faith as proof. I do not care if you can "just feel" its presence, I want undeniable, verifiable proof. If you can not do this then please do not assert any such claims as fact.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#37874 - 04/19/10 02:48 PM Re: Prove it [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Does it matter and is a discussion like this amount to anything that hasnt already been said? Im no theist but I see it as a pointless debate really because we know it is a matter of faith and belief. On top of that every human being do have set beliefs that he or she cannot prove to be fact. If we are to go very deep philosophically on could say that we cannot prove anything.

I find that a lot of the time people who do critize people who have faith in gods or spirits or the like often are oblivious to other aspects in their own life where they themselves use faith and belief. Within the modern Satanism community one such aspect is the belief in "higher magic". It has never been proven to work and even though many of these people claim that one should have proof of the existence of Satan as a spiritual being if one is a theistic satanist they never demand the same from themselves when it comes to ritual magic.

One may feel that magic works because of some kind of connection between the ritual and the events it was supposed to have an effected on and thus see it as proof of magics existence and its ability to produce "change in situations or events in accordance with one's will, which would, using normally accepted methods, be unchangeable". However christians claim the very same thing to be true with prayer. An that is something that some satanists, of the above mentioned kind, not only challenges because of the basic philosophical idea behind it (turn to someone else for help instead of doing something about it yourself) but also because christians cannot produce "objective proof" that i works.

Top
#37881 - 04/19/10 06:33 PM Re: Prove it [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
I think you're mostly preaching to the choir. Faith is all you can rely on with such testimonies, and faith, after all, is useless-- ESPECIALLY in the Sinister. Satanism is a process of growth and self-mastery-- therefore, worship of an external deity is not needed. Neither are any supernatural pretenses-- The Left Hand Path is perfectly justifiable in an atheistic context.

Satan, as I have experienced, cannot be called a "living entity", nor can the word be defined as some sort of sentient being that you can have a personal relationship with. Those who claim such things are just searching for another imaginary friend to worship.

The closest cognate I can think of is your own Will and Spirit; the inner Daimon, or "higher self", "Holy Guardian Angel", or whatever you call it. Satan is God, and that God is yourself. In layman's terms, It's all about YOU.

In my practice with Satanism, I have had incredibly powerful "spiritual experiences", and a deep feeling of numinous fervor that I cannot help but call "religious" or "devout"-- yet I am fully aware that such things are entirely within my own psyche. As Blake wrote, "All deities reside in the human breast".

The problem, I think, comes when people get carried away and can't control their own emotions, or their beliefs are so shallow that they need lots of supernatural nonsense to justify it. Whether there is no God, whether Satan is God, or whether Jehovah of the bible is God, I would still hold the same views.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#37885 - 04/19/10 06:59 PM Re: Prove it [Re: The Zebu]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Faith to me is like cigarette smoking. It's a dirty habit, but if people want to abuse their own intelligence in such a way, so be it. When people try to label faith based beliefs as Satanism, it's like smoking in my house. Just aint happening on my watch.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#37887 - 04/19/10 07:34 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Dan_Dread]
Shadow Dragon Offline
pledge


Registered: 01/18/10
Posts: 95
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Faith to me is like cigarette smoking. It's a dirty habit, but if people want to abuse their own intelligence in such a way, so be it. When people try to label faith based beliefs as Satanism, it's like smoking in my house. Just aint happening on my watch.

You do realize that atheistic/LaVeyan Satanists do not own the term "satanist," correct? If someone worships Satan as a being, what other term would they use? To me this sounds no different than the way protestants claim Catholics are "real" christians. If you want to debate the different idealogies, that's fine. But one type of Satanist saying another type isn't a real satanist, just seems a little immature in my opinion.
_________________________
"There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." - Socrates
Cogito ergo sum.

Top
#37888 - 04/19/10 07:44 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Shadow Dragon]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Seriously..all I heard there is 'boo hoo' Satanism isn't an all inclusive hugfest, and there just isn't room for mush minded 'believers' on this path. Faith is antithetical to wisdom. What defines the LHP is that it is an 'inner' path to personal empowerment. When you take what is effectively the exact same RHP formula as every other religion and just change the names, you are still left with an RHP religion. Devil worshipers aren't Satanists, period.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#37893 - 04/19/10 09:22 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Dan_Dread]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
"On top of that every human being do have set beliefs that he or she cannot prove to be fact."

Can you please give me an example? Either you believe things falsely, or you just have not done the critical thinking to realize what reason you base your beliefs on. I can tell you that there is nothing I take on faith other than that other people exist, and it is because I have never seen any proof that some grand matrix-like structure is deceiving my perception that I reasonably hold this belief.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37905 - 04/20/10 04:31 AM Re: Prove it [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Doomsage680
"On top of that every human being do have set beliefs that he or she cannot prove to be fact."

Can you please give me an example? Either you believe things falsely, or you just have not done the critical thinking to realize what reason you base your beliefs on. I can tell you that there is nothing I take on faith other than that other people exist, and it is because I have never seen any proof that some grand matrix-like structure is deceiving my perception that I reasonably hold this belief.


As I said originally this thought stems from the studies of philosophy. Are you at all familiar with René Descartes? I suggest that you read his "meditations" (avaliable here: http://www.wright.edu/cola/descartes/ ). While I dont agree on his conclusions - I actualy hold the total opposite to be true in regards to Self but it is a god text for reflection on what we may actually know and how fragile the concept of truth really can be. And while his meditations are purely thoughts we can see this again and again. What is called truth today wasnt called truth yesterday and I bet you that what is called truth today wont be called truth tomorrow. But as I said read the meditations first and I think you will understand my reasoning.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Seriously..all I heard there is 'boo hoo' Satanism isn't an all inclusive hugfest, and there just isn't room for mush minded 'believers' on this path. Faith is antithetical to wisdom. What defines the LHP is that it is an 'inner' path to personal empowerment. When you take what is effectively the exact same RHP formula as every other religion and just change the names, you are still left with an RHP religion. Devil worshipers aren't Satanists, period.


Really? I thought the antithesis to faith in the religious sense was to not believe and nothing to do with wisdom per se.

I find it funny that you want to copyright Satanism to a atheistic ideology at the same time as you, Im guessing, am folding the term left hand path without knowing its original meanings. Ive been throught his before but since atanism has no clear history and was indeed used as a term by christians hundereds of years before self-proffessed Satanists emerged (the first proof of self-professed Satanism comes from the late 1800's. Left hand path however has a tantric hindu origin and is several thousand of years old and it most definately included theism. Who are you to redefine concepts to fit your world view?


I have to also stress that while faith in a god or a spirit isnt exactly necessary I find that having faith in general in ife is of utter importance. I think everyone agrees but I just thought I would write it down. Without faith in what you do and what is possible we really would not function as human beings. We would be totally passive and probably rot away in a corner somewhere.

And also just because someone is a theist doesnt mean they bow down and obey another being. Michael Aquino is a good example of that and he has expressed his views on this forum before and much of his writing is avaliable on the Internet for anyone to see. I think it is a close-minded assumption to be frank. And again you dont seem to know what LHP and RHP really stands for or else you wouldnt consider theism in itself a criteria of RHP. You want to copyright Satanism to atheistic belief all the while you also wish to hijack a concept that is several thousand years older than Satanism and somehow try to force your Atheism upon it even though faith (in a religious sense) was of uttmost importance (and still is) to LHP practitioners in the east (because yes that tradition is still around and still has practitioners).

Top
#37920 - 04/20/10 07:26 AM Re: Prove it [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
Human beings as a whole are terrible metaphysicians.

From a Darwinian standpoint, this makes sense: Knowledge of things supposedly outside the natural universe is not really necessary for survival. Neither is a rational view of the nature of reality per se.

The human brain is basically a problem-solving survival organ, which allows humans to manipulate the natural world to their own advantage and survival. Everything from early hunting techniques and agriculture to modern science and technology are the fruits of this.

When it comes to metaphysical beliefs, truth isn't terribly 'adaptive'. Religious beliefs have flourished due to their pragmatic value in controlling and comforting the herd, aiding the survival of the species, no matter how much bullshit they contain. Humans may even be 'hard-wired' to be superstitious to some extent.

Hence the modern-day spectacle of people getting a science education, making full use of the fruits of science in terms of technology, demonstrating their ability to survive by earning good wages... and still believing in a cosmic Jewish zombie or a big red guy downstairs.

Even the most rigorous philosophers haven't really come close to answering many 'big questions' about the nature of reality. The most they've done is clarify what we are trying to ask. It's highly possible that the human brain isn't really up to the job - and that's from the intellectual elite.

This really leaves two options: Doubt and faith.

When it comes to an assertion such as "there is a real Satan", where Satan is seen as a non-physical conscious being, there can really be no good reasons to believe (that is, 'good' as in related to truth). Empirical evidence cannot test a hypothesis about something genuinely non-physical. It is thus 'unfalsifiable' and from a scientific perspective, useless and best abandoned.
It can't be tested with 'a priori' reasoning either (logic without evidence), and those who claim to possess mystical knowledge which proves it to them are layering up another unsubstantiated assertion...

The only way to believe in it is to close one's eyes and take that blind leap of faith.
And a blind leap it is...

Top
#37924 - 04/20/10 09:27 AM Re: Prove it [Re: Meq]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
I am well aware of the Cartesian method of doubt. But what, specifically, do you believe without reason? Give me any example.

"Without faith in what you do and what is possible we really would not function as human beings. We would be totally passive and probably rot away in a corner somewhere."

People of faith always use this argument, but what does it mean?

I don't function as a human because of irrational belief in what I do or why I do it. Indeed, nothing is more rational than realizing that life has no meaning other than that which I give it, and anything less than my best effort will lead to dissatisfaction with the life I have made myself.
It's deciding that I want to live life to the fullest and achieve happiness that keeps me from being passive. Not faith in anything.

I await an example of any belief that you hold without reason. I'll put aside your theism, as it has been addressed. Any other belief you hold that you think is without reason, and it is either baseless, or it has a reason you have simply not realized.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37925 - 04/20/10 09:29 AM Re: Prove it [Re: Doomsage680]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
And thanks, by the way, for posting this link to Descartes' work. I am reading it thoroughly and expect to be enlightened.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37932 - 04/20/10 01:24 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Doomsage680

 Quote:
But what, specifically, do you believe without reason? Give me any example. . .

. . .I await an example of any belief that you hold without reason. I'll put aside your theism, as it has been addressed. Any other belief you hold that you think is without reason, and it is either baseless, or it has a reason you have simply not realized.


Im not a theist. I thought that was clear when I said "Im no theist but I see it as a pointless debate. . ."

I never said I held belifs without reason. I wrote: "On top of that every human being do have set beliefs that he or she cannot prove to be fact. If we are to go very deep philosophically one could say that we cannot prove anything."

There are two layes to this statement. One is the philosophical one which René Descartes symbolizes quite well. Everyone who has read his meditations know what I mean. Its not a long text so I refer to it rather than repeat his arguments here. As I said before I dont agree on his conclusion to it but it does symbolize how everything we think we know exists might not exist.

Then there is the more hands on scientific level. Up until 1897 we thought the atom was the building block of everything material. The smallest particle known and indivisable. Then we discovered the electron. This became a new truth. Today most scientists seem to believe that materia does not have a inner core, a foundational building block. It is all energy that moves at different speed making up what we observe as electrons, positron, atoms etc.

The point I am making is that what is considered truth today might be considered false tomorrow. Were we then ever able to prove our statement when we considered it to be true? No of course not because if we could it wouldnt be considered false after some time had passed and new processes were being discovered.

 Quote:

"Without faith in what you do and what is possible we really would not function as human beings. We would be totally passive and probably rot away in a corner somewhere."

People of faith always use this argument, but what does it mean?


I must clarify that I dont mean "faith in god" (or satan for that matter) but faith and belief as in "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing" and "mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something". If we dont have belief in ourselves and in what we can accomplish do you really think we would be able to do something. It can be concrete to a point of almost being silly. Would you be able to walk to the store and buy your toilet paper if you did not have a belief that you could do it? No because you would fight a mental block that you wouldnt be able to pass.

This precis thing can be seen with depressed people. They dont think they are able to do something (mental) and therefore they can do it physically. Of course my belief if that the mental and the physical on a ground level are the very same thing so I am not surprised one can effect the other so totally. It works the other way around as well with the physical having impact on the mental - sometimes with dire consequenses.

Dont you also believe this to be true? Se how I managed to incorporate both "belive" and "true" in that last question ;\)

 Quote:
I don't function as a human because of irrational belief in what I do or why I do it. Indeed, nothing is more rational than realizing that life has no meaning other than that which I give it, and anything less than my best effort will lead to dissatisfaction with the life I have made myself.
It's deciding that I want to live life to the fullest and achieve happiness that keeps me from being passive. Not faith in anything.


How could you not have faith in anything but still having faith that life has no meaning? Having faith in you being able to give it meaning? Having faith that you can indeed realize your own vision with your own force? And with this in mind do you have faith in that you have a free will that makes all your descisions possible? Do you have faith that there even is such a thing as a will?

I think it is pretty ridiculous to claim to not have faith or belief in anything - no offence intended. To me that symbolizes that one havent thought things through and one just takes for granted that some of our ideas are true. And as I said above the belief in that we have a will is a prime example. There if no proof for such a thing?


Edited by TheInsane (04/20/10 01:27 PM)

Top
#37943 - 04/20/10 06:31 PM Re: Prove it [Re: TheInsane]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
"How could you not have faith in anything but still having faith that life has no meaning? Having faith in you being able to give it meaning? Having faith that you can indeed realize your own vision with your own force? And with this in mind do you have faith in that you have a free will that makes all your descisions possible? Do you have faith that there even is such a thing as a will?"

The onus is on you to prove that life has meaning outside of that which I give it. Without religion, one finds that there is no God to give their life direction, purpose, or "meaning". This is quite simple. If I sit around and do nothing, no outside force will come and "give" my life meaning. The idea that life has meaning without your will is silly and unfounded.

We evolved from animals. Abiogenesis vaguely explains how life came from non-life. No where in this process is there meaning that was "endowed" into our primate brains.

"I think it is pretty ridiculous to claim to not have faith or belief in anything - no offence intended. To me that symbolizes that one havent thought things through and one just takes for granted that some of our ideas are true. And as I said above the belief in that we have a will is a prime example. There if no proof for such a thing?"

You think it's ridiculous to NOT have faith? That I haven't thought things through?

Faith is by definition illogical. If you have faith it is because you are lacking or fabricating logic.
No proof for will? There is a simple explanation for free will- it is a choice, from a limited range of conceivable choices, that one makes. What can you possibly mean by "there is no proof for such a thing?" That's like saying there's no proof that I have thoughts. I know I have thoughts, and I know I put them into action. What you are doing is a logical fallacy by assuming a deterministic world, where our actions are not our own. Not only is there no proof of this, but if it were true it would have no bearing on reality.

Further, I do not have faith that my free will makes my vision possible. I do not have faith that I "Will" succeed, but I have reason to believe I will, simply because I have all ready gotten this far, I am on a clear track to being able to achieve what I want, and because it does not require faith to believe in one's self. I know I exist and I know I am capable of doing things that will get me to where I want to go. You act as though one must know how everything plays out in order to have confidence in their own abilities.

You are the one who claims to have faith that certain beliefs are true. When pressed, you resort to the age old references to advancement in science. I never said we can know everything to be true, but rather that we have reason. This is entirely different from having "faith" that certain things are true.
The Scientific Method does not rely on faith at all. Only reason.

And I know all about Depression. I have overcome it. And it was deciding that I would live my life on my terms, not for others but for my own happiness, and that I would not put emotional stake in things outside myself for identity, that allowed me to overcome it. It's not faith. I can stop living anytime I want and give up, and it was because I didn't have the will to physically kill myself, and because I felt unsure about what came after death at the time, that I decided to make the most of my life now. It has nothing to do with faith.

We evolved and survived by sticking together and starting families to pass on our genes. The things that motivated us to survive are still motivators now- the desire to survive, be happy, communicate and be understood, and be secure with those we care for who care for us- these things aid us biologically in finding happiness, but there is no Objective meaning to life other than that which we give it. I have made it to be happy.
Being a descendant of animals, I know that we can survive and be happy given the freedom to live our own lives. Faith has nothing to do with it.


I ask again, what beliefs do you hold based on faith, other than scientific discoveries(which isn't really faith but rather trust in scientists and their publications, which is reasonable)?


Edited by Doomsage680 (04/20/10 06:34 PM)
Edit Reason: word games consistency
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37954 - 04/20/10 11:22 PM Re: Prove it [Re: TheInsane]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
There is a large difference between scientific knowledge and faith-based knowledge.

While science is simply "assertions resting upon assertions", it is self-demanding. Any contradiction must be investigated. If we find an easier or more accurate conclusion to support our hypotheses, this new knowledge will promptly displace the old.

Faith, however, has absolutely no method to it. An old image macro comes to mind: the maxim Faith as: "Get an idea, and keep it forever and ignore all contradicting evidence".

 Quote:
Within the modern Satanism community one such aspect is the belief in "higher magic".


Very few people believe that Higher Magic has any supernatural effects-- if they do, they are morons. I blame the general retardedness of the 60's and LaVey's flowery imagination for that little tidbit. Again, we are not them.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#37957 - 04/21/10 03:07 AM Re: Prove it [Re: The Zebu]
spinosaurus01 Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/24/10
Posts: 14
I have an article you can read, but be open minded yeah?

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/garden.html

Top
#37963 - 04/21/10 02:41 PM Re: Prove it [Re: spinosaurus01]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
 Originally Posted By: spinosaurus01
I have an article you can read, but be open minded yeah?

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/garden.html

"Open-mindedness" is an important virtue when investigating what is true, as without being open to new ideas, one could never learn.

However, open-mindedness without critical thinking is NOT sufficient, as this video makes clear. (A link is also on the home page.)

I for one don't consider Joy of Satan's ideas to stand up to critical scrutiny.
Worth reading for a laugh though ;\)

 Originally Posted By: Joy of Satan
Humanity was created by extra-terrestrials who needed slave laborers in the mines. By taking the ovum from a Cro-Magnon/primate and using artificial insemination with a sperm from one of the Nephilim, we were created.

Now that's a good laugh.

Top
#37965 - 04/21/10 02:57 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
MawhrinSkel

Excellent post my friend. It does clarify some of the definitions.

Doomsage680

I feel that you continuously misunderstand or misinterpret me so I will try to keep it shorter and more to the point.

 Quote:
The onus is on you to prove that life has meaning outside of that which I give it.


Again, like the theism discussion (no I’m still not a theist), I never claimed life has an objective meaning. Please quote the place where you think I did. I was trying to prove to you that you believe or have faith in something that you cant prove to be true. You cant prove life has no meaning outside of what you make it. As far as I remember you are the one who claimed that you hold no faith and no belief in anything - you just seem to be all knowing and only lean on "truth". I dont say its a bad thing to strive for truth, for wanting truth, but I think people have the heads up their own asses if they think they KNOW the truth and never act on faith of belief.

 Quote:
No proof for will? There is a simple explanation for free will- it is a choice, from a limited range of conceivable choices, that one makes. What can you possibly mean by "there is no proof for such a thing?"


Seriously how much philosophy have you studied? You should know that the question of mans will, free will or non-will is a huge topic that has never been adequately answered. The thing is you can never prove that you actually can make several different choices because in the end you only do one and there can be good argument that that’s really the only choice you are able to make given the history of what has led you to this action. So as I see it you have Faith in this idea of free will (remember the definition MahwrinSkel posted that “faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing”).
In reality the human brain is conditioned to see the causal connections and it is quite easy to reason that our universe is entirely deterministic. Again dont misinterpret that this is my view on life - it is not - but if you think about it every action you take is taken because of something that happened before it. You may feel like you have choices but one can make the point that when you "choose" that is indeed the only option you could have gone with taken into account all variables. Its like the old though that if we knew one point fixation in space and knew all about it we could, theoretically, predict everything that will happen in the future from that point. And you hold the concept of the the world and man as non-deterministic as a matter of faith and belief because you cant prove that the world isn’t deterministic.

It wouldnt be the first time our minds deceive us. We also believe stones for example are solid when we now, through scientific knowledge, know that they arent (see sub-atomic physics) etc. My point is that no one has proven that man has free will (if you have you’d be the first human to do it). The free will thought generally comes from a view of dualism between body and mind (or soul or spirit or whatever). That the source of the will is somehow not bound in the material universe (because if it was, while will may be possible, it certainly wouldnt be free). On account in the will debate can be found in the stanford encyclopedia:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#3.3

 Quote:
The will has also recently become a target of empirical study in neuroscience and cognitive psychology. Benjamin Libet (2002) conducted experiments designed to determine the timing of conscious willings or decisions to act in relation to brain activity associated with the physical initiation of behavior. Interpretation of the results is highly controversial. Libet himself concludes that the studies provide strong evidence that actions are already underway shortly before the agent wills to do it. As a result, we do not consciously initiate our actions, though he suggests that we might nonetheless retain the ability to veto actions that are initiated by unconscious psychological structures. Wegner (2002) masses a much range of studies (including those of Libet) to argue that the notion that human actions are ever initiated by their own conscious willings is simply a deeply-entrenched illusion and proceeds to offer an hypothesis concerning the reason this illusion is generated within our cognitive systems. O'Connor (forthcoming) argues that the data adduced by Libet and Wegner wholly fail to support their revisionary conclusions.


This is indeed more in line with Nietzsches notion rather than Descartes for example. And you seem to be way closer to Descartes from what I have read.

 Quote:
And I know all about Depression. I have overcome it. And it was deciding that I would live my life on my terms, not for others but for my own happiness, and that I would not put emotional stake in things outside myself for identity, that allowed me to overcome it. It's not faith.


So you didn’t have faith in yourself to be able to overcome it? You had reasonable belief? Would I interpret you right if I said that? See faith doesn’t have to be rooted in lies necessarily. It can also be that very thing that builds up our self-esteem by being there and believing in ourselves. Having faith in what you do is very important to man. One example is in elite sports where its more and more common with psychological training which both builds the mental strength but also provides deep faith that that something the athlete strives for is indeed possible.

 Quote:

I ask again, what beliefs do you hold based on faith, other than scientific discoveries(which isn't really faith but rather trust in scientists and their publications, which is reasonable)?


Again the definition of faith: “Faith is the confident belief or [b]trust[/] in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.” Did I make myself clear?

As for my beliefs. I believe that;
- all men are not equal
- the body and mind are really one and dependant on eachother (that is Im no fan of Descartes “cogito ergo sum”)
- the only thing that is unchanging is change itself.
- that the material is really empty (atomless in the philosophical sense of the word atom) – its all energy.
- that the world is, in the underlying reality of it all, non-dual.
- That Satan is a representation of this totally other wordview compared to monotheism for example where there is something unchanging in perfection, something that is dual, something that does divide man in body, soul and spirit etc.
- Ideas have an objective and independent existence outside of man (that is Im not a Platonist).

Happy?

Edit: Ok so I didnt keep it shorter but I hope I made it more clear and I hope that you avoid reading things into what I have written that I simply didnt write.


Edited by TheInsane (04/21/10 02:59 PM)

Top
#37966 - 04/21/10 03:13 PM Re: Prove it [Re: spinosaurus01]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3115
It is not the ability of being open-minded that is sufficient.
It is not the ability of critical thinking alone that is sufficient.
Critical thinking and open-minded thinking combined is not even sufficient.

The general attitude a person should have, should be the one wherein consideration, a good deal of egoism and knowledge, and critical thinking is needed. The first question which should float trough the mind is not: "is it possible?". it should be: "Do I gain something and should I give a fuck about it after the consideration if it will affect me in some way or another?".

When talking about religions and faith, the general guidelines and/or rules and ways of thinking are but a matter of "take it or leave it" being decided by "does it REALLY resonate on personal level?".

I applaud for 6's remark. It is a statement for all of you who live with the faith in something non-existing/dubious. I am all in for the attack approach for atheistic ideas.


Now I also read something along the lines of "the term Satanism is not copyrighted by those with atheistic views". Might I suggest taking the head out of your ass and point out it is neither copyrighted by those with theistic views? I am taking myself the right to define Satanism by the same atheistic standards ASL used. Anything which falls next to the boat will be called "pretending".

The Satanic philosophy has straight set out guidelines and can be followed by those with theistic views. The only conditions which will prevent a person from falling next to it, are written down in the Satanic statements and sins in a very condensed version. (Sadly enough, most even fail to gasp those and tend to use it for 1-time events to create illusionary feelings of superiority and pretended insight/intelligence, fuck'em).

Now to get back at the original topic;
Faith cannot be proven since it is a concept merely created by feelings. If a statement is being made and is being based on faith, then this statement will be automatically regarded as nonsense. Statements are being based upon FACTS, and if the factor of "faith in a person/thing" is being used then the reasons WHY should be used and the chances of luck being lower than 40%.

As said before by others: a negative cannot be proven.
This is self-explaining, either take it or leave it. Don't get it? --> study.


Edited by Dimitri (04/21/10 03:29 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#37968 - 04/21/10 03:49 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Dimitri]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Dimitri

 Quote:

I applaud for 6's remark. It is a statement for all of you who live with the faith in something non-existing/dubious. I am all in for the attack approach for atheistic ideas.


See my above post. Im not talking about faith in God or a faith in a metaphysical Satan.

 Quote:

Now I also read something along the lines of "the term Satanism is not copyrighted by those with atheistic views". Might I suggest taking the head out of your ass and point out it is neither copyrighted by those with theistic views? I am taking myself the right to define Satanism by the same atheistic standards ASL used. Anything which falls next to the boat will be called "pretending".


I critique theistic satanists all the time as well (especially the idiots in temple of the black light) but on these boards there tends to be mostly atheists (which I myself also am) so therefore the critique is directed more in that direction in these surroundings.

And we've been through the definition of Satanism problem before so its unneccesarry to get into it again. The previous discussion can be found here: http://www.the600club.com/topic35134-1.html

Top
#37971 - 04/21/10 05:30 PM Re: Prove it [Re: TheInsane]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL


I don't quite understand the relevance of the article. Like all the other JoS rants, it's full of half-baked psuedoscience and false correlations that could be easily solved by retaking the 4th grade.

I've got some time to kill while my dinner's in the oven, so here goes an easy one:

 Quote:
By taking the ovum from a Cro-Magnon/primate and using artificial insemination with a sperm from one of the Nephilim, we were created.


An alien lifeform and a Cro-Magnon could never mate through artificial insemination, as their genetic makeup would be completely different and the disparate number of chromosomes would make fertilization impossible.

 Quote:
We did not evolve naturally, as opposed to animals who have overall better health and immunity.


Do I really need to cover this one? Take a biology class. We're pretty much the same as other animals, except for our envious ability to kill ourselves off with a dazzling array of modern technology.

 Quote:
This stage under a microscope looks just like an APPLE.


Of course, trying to draw a false parallel between two things simply because they look similar. This is made even more invalid by the fact that most ancient sources say that the Forbidden Fruit was actually a date or citron. The "apple" idea was thought up by ignorant Westerners who only ate apples and didn't know what the fuck a date was.

 Quote:
The Flower of Life is the blueprint for every living thing.


It's a man-made geometric design. It bears absolutely no resemblance to any genetic sequence.

 Quote:
This was the sole intention by the angels who communicated the information to Dr. John Dee and Edward Kelly.


If the JoS have such a beef with Enochian material being "bad", then why did they follow in LaVey's (whom they also hate) footsteps of ripping off the Calls? Oh, wait, that's because they're a lot of unoriginal wankers with shallow, dickwad beliefs, which is why they have to Frankenstein their religion together with disparate bits from the New Age shelf of Barnes & Noble and selectively ignore all the evidence that doesn't support their crackpot Xenu-esque fantasies.

I rest my case.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#37979 - 04/21/10 09:21 PM Re: Prove it [Re: The Zebu]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
Zebu,
as someone who used to take cues and random bits of info from JoS, I can say you are completely Right, it's a huge ton of bullshit and a big waste of time.

TheInsane,
I agree that no one can "know" that we don't live in a deterministic world, but as I said, until a shred of evidence is presented that I don't have free will, there is no reason to believe it. You can't falsify a negative, and inability to falsify a negative is not equal to validating a positive. I defined free will as a choice from a range of possible choices- this takes into account that it is influenced by past events. But you make it sound like people live a roller-coaster life where one action leads to another without any thinking. I would say that for example, yesterday, I sat around a lot. I could have watched tv or checked facebook. There was no limiting factor that made me do one or another, and to say that there was has no basis in reality. Sure my curiosity might be more inclined towards one than another, but the idea that I potentially only had a single choice is just wishful thinking.
Frankly, philosophers do a lot of mental masturbation, coming up with ridiculous unfounded ideas. Even Descartes, as he believed that since it is possible to imagine a perfect being, it must exist.
It's also a way to settle for the way one's life has turned out.

You seem to think that because I live based on having a reason to think or act rather than having blind faith, that I am some kind of hypocrite. You can push this "truth cannot be known" agenda, but the fact is that I have a reason for everything I do, think, say, and believe. It doesn't even matter if we live in a deterministic world because unless I believed that, I would not be dismayed in working towards goals.
I'm not misinterpreting anything you say, unless you're saying that faith is the same as belief and that reason isn't closer to truth than irrationality.
I agree with everything you pointed out there, but I don't see how it disfavors cogito ergo sum.

My only self-evident beliefs are these-
happiness. it is its own reason and own reward.
Survival. it is its own reason and own reward.

Everything else comes from rationally interacting with the world. I don't see how any of my beliefs are based on irrationality. Life has no meaning other than that which I give it, because no one else could give my life meaning in a way that makes me happy. If it is another person, it is then a relationship we mutually made meaningful. I don't see how you can logically dispute this.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37991 - 04/22/10 04:06 AM Re: Prove it [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Doomsage680

 Quote:

I'm not misinterpreting anything you say, unless you're saying that faith is the same as belief and that reason isn't closer to truth than irrationality.


You thought I was a theist. I also never said that I held beliefs without reason. Thats what I was talking about that you misinterpreted in reading my messages.

 Quote:
I agree that no one can "know" that we don't live in a deterministic world, but as I said, until a shred of evidence is presented that I don't have free will, there is no reason to believe it. You can't falsify a negative, and inability to falsify a negative is not equal to validating a positive.


Actually there is no proof whatsoever that a free will exists scientifically. Either one is of the old school and thinks we are deterministically bound (in the biological and not theological sense) or one believes the quantum physics theory which probably means that while the word isnt deterministic per se it neither includes an element like a will that conciously makes descicions. I think its up to you to prove, scientifically, that a thing such as will exists and also if this will is free or not.

It is you who believe in a free will without evidence for it to exist. Therefore its up to you o prove that it exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Physics


 Quote:

You seem to think that because I live based on having a reason to think or act rather than having blind faith, that I am some kind of hypocrite.


Again you misinterpret me. I never even wrote the words "blind faith". I dislike blind faith as much as the next guy. I think you are a hypocrite for holding faith and belief in certain ideas that cant be proven like free will that science actually has always tended to disprove if anything. But you still critize other for having faith and belief in other concepts.


 Quote:
You can push this "truth cannot be known" agenda, but the fact is that I have a reason for everything I do, think, say, and believe.


This is a funny type-o in regards to this discussion. In a deterministic world there is indeed a reason for everything you do. Its called action and reaction ;\)

 Quote:
But you make it sound like people live a roller-coaster life where one action leads to another without any thinking. I would say that for example, yesterday, I sat around a lot. I could have watched tv or checked facebook. There was no limiting factor that made me do one or another, and to say that there was has no basis in reality. Sure my curiosity might be more inclined towards one than another, but the idea that I potentially only had a single choice is just wishful thinking.


http://mises.org/daily/1943


Again remember that Im not necessarilly putting forth my beliefs here at all times. I try to make you realize that your notion of a free will has no base in either pre-modern or modern science. Free will is at large a concept of faith and belief that most often springs from the thought of a theological universe.


Edited by TheInsane (04/22/10 04:07 AM)

Top
#37995 - 04/22/10 05:15 AM Re: Prove it [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Agreed 100%.

And a more interesting focus is probably what freedom actually is. Are we "free from", "free to" or "free of"? Is freedom, as a concept, even possible. These are huge questions that no one can answer in a completely satisfying way but it is still very interesting \:\)

Top
#37997 - 04/22/10 05:41 AM Re: Prove it [Re: TheInsane]
spinosaurus01 Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/24/10
Posts: 14
Oooh! Oooh!

I can prove it!

Wait for iiiit, wait for iiiit.....]

....

THE BIBLE SAYS SO!!!! Therefore it must be true ;\) *gasp!*

Top
#38004 - 04/22/10 11:51 AM Re: Prove it [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 860
Loc: Nashville
MawhrinSkel, while I enjoyed your opening post, I still don’t see a difference between belief and faith except that faith is often used more in a religious/theistic context. Faith is still believing in something, no matter how you slice it.

I really don’t have a problem with faith. People can believe whatever they want, whether I agree with it or not. Who am I to tell a theist he is wrong? He believes there is a god; I believe there isn’t. We can argue till the cows come home, but at the end of the day we’re only spinning our wheels (and pissing each other off) because neither of us know.

What frustrates me about many religious believers is not that they believe in something, but that they speak with a certainty that suggests they can’t possibly be wrong. They don’t say heaven and hell might exist. They say heaven and hell DO exist, and it’s their mission to convince me they exist.

I understand why they do it. When considering the issue of life itself – the nature of life, what it all “means”, etc. – belief seems inadequate. There is a tremendous pressure to know because so much is at stake. But the answer is not to confuse belief with knowledge. The answer, as I see it, is to focus on what I actually know.

What do I know? I know that I’m alive. I know that I have the ability to make good things happen for myself, and I know that my time and energy are better spent living in the real world instead of burdening myself with the endless variety of paranormal hypotheticals out there.

I view theistic religions the same way I view the ancient Greek myths – interesting stories occasionally containing powerful life lessons, but myths all the same. Until I see conclusive proof otherwise, I will continue to hold this view.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#38005 - 04/22/10 12:06 PM Re: Prove it [Re: TheInsane]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3115
I have made my points clear and comprehensive enough for any low-IQ person to gasp.
Read closer and better, I spoke about faith in general (including faith in a real person or object).
And I did not see any reference to you, so I am starting to wonder why the hell you even bothered to reply.

 Quote:
I critique theistic satanists all the time as well (especially the idiots in temple of the black light) but on these boards there tends to be mostly atheists (which I myself also am) so therefore the critique is directed more in that direction in these surroundings.

Reread the OP (6's) before puking.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#38008 - 04/22/10 12:54 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Dimitri]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
I have made my points clear and comprehensive enough for any low-IQ person to gasp.
Read closer and better, I spoke about faith in general (including faith in a real person or object).
And I did not see any reference to you, so I am starting to wonder why the hell you even bothered to reply.

 Quote:
I critique theistic satanists all the time as well (especially the idiots in temple of the black light) but on these boards there tends to be mostly atheists (which I myself also am) so therefore the critique is directed more in that direction in these surroundings.

Reread the OP (6's) before puking.


Its an open discussion on a public internet forum. Whats your problem with me replying to what you write? You did refer to a post I made on the theistic and atheistic debate within satanic circles.

And just because you present you thoughts here doesnt mean everyone will agree with them - low, medium or high IQ with all due respect ;\)

Top
#38023 - 04/23/10 12:19 AM Re: Prove it [Re: TheInsane]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
"Actually there is no proof whatsoever that a free will exists scientifically. Either one is of the old school and thinks we are deterministically bound (in the biological and not theological sense) or one believes the quantum physics theory which probably means that while the word isnt deterministic per se it neither includes an element like a will that conciously makes descicions. I think its up to you to prove, scientifically, that a thing such as will exists and also if this will is free or not. "

What are you talking about? Scientists know how the brain works. We have chemicals that influence our decisions, the ability to comprehend our environment, and the ability to make decisions. Here's an "experiment". Decide to start scratching yourself. Stop if you want. Then keep going. Rinse and repeat.

In terms of free will, for example, when I freestyle(rapping while verbalizing thoughts rhythmically and impromptu), I think of many potential words to say to rhyme or continue a theme. I don't see how, biologically, the choice of words I say is limited(the list might be but my decisions to use one and save another for the future isn't), as I take an active role in choosing them, looking at surroundings and utilizing them, and doing everything else involved, including changing tones, changing rhythms, and maybe even changing languages. All human decisions cannot be defined by biological urges, as many have nothing to do with any need related to survival.

Of course I have the will to do as I want when I want, and yes it is free, as I have defined it- a choice from a range of choices as defined by reality. I don't shove crayons into doorknobs because there is no reason to, and I will not have an urge to do so because, biologically, there is no reason to do such a thing. You're saying that either everything is controlled by some god or that the random events of quantum physics mean everything is random- yet only the insane or psychologically disturbed will act without reason.
Our decisions are based on our biology as formed by evolution, social norms, and legal demands. Fuck whatever philosophers you think demonstrate that a free will doesn't exist. That belief is, again, meaningless, and since I have no reason to believe that something else controls my will, there is no doubt that I am in control. If indeed I discovered that my will was entirely controlled by some other force, wouldn't it be curious to think that I was capable of discovering such a thing without retaking control? That would mean I was a mind trapped in a body unable to act. Yet I act only when I want, doing what I want.

The random actions outside of cause and effect that happen on a quantum level, such as particles popping into and out of existence, happen on such a rare and small scale that it is invalid to believe that our own decisions are themselves random and not free. I only ever make decisions to do things that are possible- if our will wasn't free, wouldn't it manifest itself in someone doing very strange and misunderstood random acts? Wouldn't we all do strange illogical random acts?
If quantum physics was as random as you make it seem as to not allow for free will, we would be as likely to fall through solid objects at common intervals. Indeed, the randomness of the universe does not take affect in such ways, and the idea that our will isn't free because every particle started on a set course ignores the fact that our brains can conceive and decide to do things.

The only way to believe that there may not be such a thing as free will is to create another plane where a being or entirely random energy affects our reality, and this is something that has no proof.

The argument you are making against free will in saying that I need to provide proof it exists is the same as theists saying to prove God doesn't exist. I think, therefore I am. I know that my thoughts aren't trapped inside my brain, and I know that my life has not been me watching myself live but rather me learning and making new decisions with new actions. There is no reason to believe that I am not in control, as I have decided every single thing I wrote here. Chemicals might influence our brains but the content of these words was decided by my mind and my will put them onto this forum. I have no reason to believe something else of any nature is in control.
You are making a very cheap point in trying to say that "I don't know, therefore, I do indeed live my life based on faith".

I'm making the point that I have reason to believe I have free will, and indeed, no reason to believe the opposite, and that because I make all decisions based on some kind of reason, there is no room for faith. You can tell yourself that free will might not exist but where does it get you? This idea goes nowhere. A claim is not legitimate unless it is falsifiable, and deciding to believe that any proof is a part of a greater scheme of a will-less deterministic universe is irrational.

It is also a form of the Argument from Ignorance to say that because YOU don't understand how the brain works neurologically, it therefore doesn't have free will and that free will is unprovable.

This argument is pointless as you are just going to say, no matter what you do to prove a free will, you can't prove that That wasn't predetermined too!
To me this is the same thing as faith- baseless belief that no matter what, you can't totally "disprove" whatever idea you decide to ascribe to.
And I never said that action and reaction weren't valid. But humans are sentient beings capable of reacting differently to the same things and creating different actions that cause different reactions. You leave out the part of the human mind and just assume we're all dominoes in a chain of events.

It's too easy to say that free will is a concept that springs from a theological universe. Most concepts spring from some theological basis, as most people and most ideas were related to theology for the significant part of human history, and I would argue it is markedly the idea that there is no free will that especially comes from a theistic background.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#38025 - 04/23/10 01:41 AM Re: Prove it [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Mindmaster Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 68
Loc: Detroit, MI
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
Every now and then this site gets people who maintain that Satan, as an actual living entity, exists. I invite all who make such claims to prove it.

Disclaimer: Do NOT try to use faith as proof. I do not care if you can "just feel" its presence, I want undeniable, verifiable proof. If you can not do this then please do not assert any such claims as fact.


This is fun really... 'ere we go! So do you believe in some sort of idea of dark thought yourself that decides that you aren't entirely an Atheist only? Welp, you just found your Devil. Game over. Sure, I can explain.

The philosophers of the past from the times of Pythagoras to the Chaldeans, and the Cabalists all had the belief that "God" or the divine existed and man was created in its image, thus by logical extension "man" was accurately a microcosmic God containing of a divine spark. Thus, and contained within a man thus has a logical correspondence somewhere else in the universal pea soup which reflected the divine aspect of this particular form or archetype. As above, so below; so below, as above. Man, logically in conventional mysticism was a "mini-God" or self-contained universe of consciousness. We seem to function accordingly as well don't we? That which exists within us exists without us by this analogy. I guess when you don't have so many TV's and video games you spend your life trying to figure out things. :P

LaVey obviously drew from the sources of classical hermetic thought in his own books. It would be relatively silly to believe he didn't think anything of it when he gleened the materials in a somewhat altered form and penned them into The Satanic Bible. One doesn't trouble themselves with incorporating the ideas for which they don't believe in. But, LaVey was a pretty smart guy and probably realized the average waste of humanity on this rock doesn't care about their spiritual advancement. So he probably decided there was more gold to be had in Satanic tourism, and I'd tend to agree. What'd he personally believe? Well, do your homework and do the math... I doubt he'd bother to read Aleister Crowley, John Dee, or any of the other classical references if he thought it was 100% hogwash. It's truly hard to read through these types of things when you intellectually reject them completely as had been the case in my own youth.

To understand Crowley in particular you need a good backing in esoterica to understand anything the man writes. You need a comprehensive knowledge of correspondences just to make heads or tails of most of it. Conversely, TSB enochian keys are just adapted from Crowley's _Equinox_ publishing with every god word replaced with "Satan" or other minor alterations. Surely, one goes through all of this trouble for no apparent reason. :P I think LaVey had a very real perception of the forces that be, but it doesn't sell as many books and memberships. The Church of Satan probably neutered itself and became an entirely secular institution for this reason alone. It's far easier to get money from rich folks when you're just "playing" with the devil verses doing the devils work.

All that being said, I probably would share your views if I didn't understand that a vehement disbelief of any concept is putting you in the same muddy water as those who have faith without reason. Your eyes are tightly closed in either case and do not aid any spiritual development or understanding. Classically, "The Devil" is in the details; If you seek self-gratification over self-denial, your will over "gods will", and seek to break free of conventions then you are obviously proving this existence of this force through your own action regardless of your beliefs. You can deny that those things exist but that doesn't change the obvious manifestation in your consciousness and by extension very real presence.

Perhaps, you then could answer the question of why you live in the self-denial typically associated with Christians? Denial of the forces present within your own mind and that you have nothing in common with them nor derive no pleasure in that relationship! Verily, you mock it like a disappointed school-girl and seem disappointed that the boogie man didn't decide to show up at your house, but did visit your friends a night since passed!

Needless to say, I can't believe in the Satan someone else creates for me nor can you! But, I do believe one can reach inside to increase that power infinitely and perhaps experience it directly by extension which tends to be an accurate realization in relation to my own meanderings. This view is nothing new, and has been held by traditional mystics since the time of the ancient Egyptians and possibly before. I perhaps would view similarly to you if "Modern Satanism" could possibly be a large enough container for my experiences, but I have found it lacking in many ways. It perhaps accurately describes a traveler starting on a journey in earnest, but it is not very far along the left hand path that one realizes the insufficiencies. Nonetheless, it's very much a part of my core and a love the idealism of it validates it's personal relevance to me. It's a part of me, but I've become much more.

Many Satanists read the TSB and like what they see, and then they refuse to do any leg work because "all of these things don't exist" or whatever. It is the standard cop-out! Exploring spiritual paths would make you un-Satanic or other such nonsense. I'm declaring war on you types as you are putrid wastes of humanity that would do much better as fertilizer than a Satanist. You are as weak as the Christians, but instead of having an open fear of spiritual awakening you have a backward-talking fear of the irrational. The defense to the positions they have is "shields up", thus neither know anything at all.

Surely, this view is unpopular with the types that frequent this forum... that there could be something not explained. Realize that all ideals, views, and beliefs are an ongoing process of evolution which requires the seeker to seek. Stasis is death in all things! LaVey's ideas were very good for his time, but are they comprehensive enough to explain the experiences we are having now? Are they to be regarded is a mere stepping stone on the journey? Only time will tell, but we have to keep moving forward or fall to the side as inferiority slips into the core of the philosophy.

I apologize for the length of this thanks for being patient. :P

- Mind

Top
#38029 - 04/23/10 06:42 AM Re: Prove it [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Doomsage680

I wont go into detail about everything in your post since at large it seemed like ranting without giving any scientific proof (even though you say you’re so fond of science and truth). Funny how it is I who have directed you to scientific sources.
 Quote:
I'm making the point that I have reason to believe I have free will, and indeed, no reason to believe the opposite, and that because I make all decisions based on some kind of reason, there is no room for faith. You can tell yourself that free will might not exist but where does it get you?

It is also a form of the Argument from Ignorance to say that because YOU don't understand how the brain works neurologically, it therefore doesn't have free will and that free will is unprovable.

Maybe your reason betrays you then…
Im sorry to say but I think its you who make an ass out of yourself. I did provide links to works that explains why free will is very much something to doubt that humans have. I will do it again and please read it this time. This is neurological science that as far as science goes today proves that there is no base for a thing such as free will:

http://bioethics.stanford.edu/conference/hallett.pdf

Now I challenge you to go out there and find a neurological science report that supports the idea of free will on a scientific basis. I think this is fair since you call me ignorant but its you who can’t provide scientific evidence of what you claim to be true.

 Quote:
The argument you are making against free will in saying that I need to provide proof it exists is the same as theists saying to prove God doesn't exist.

It’s the other way around actually. Theists believe in God but no one has been able to prove his/her/its existence. Therefore its up to them to prove it. You believe in free will but no one has been able to prove its existence. Therefore its up to you to prove it.


 Quote:
If quantum physics was as random as you make it seem as to not allow for free will, we would be as likely to fall through solid objects at common intervals.

No and if you knew anything about quantum physics you would know why. The Wikipedia introduction is actually alright so start there; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_physics



Edited by TheInsane (04/23/10 06:42 AM)

Top
#38030 - 04/23/10 07:30 AM Re: Prove it [Re: TheInsane]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
I just read through Mindmasters and MawhrinSkels posts and I just wanted to add that I greatly appreciate what both of you wrote. Both posts make me think and that is indeed a good grade ;\)

I do think the most important thing about anything is that it doesn’t become stagnant and this was always my main critique of LaVeyan Satanism. I myself have my foundation in that thought but I see it as if I have grown out of the label LaVeyan a long time ago because I did branch out and I did go to the roots and even to a whole different world.

I have LaVey to thank for opening the gates but to be honest today I value Nietzsche and Heraclitus a lot more than LaVey. However without LaVey I might not have discovered either of the two.

I also branched out and am very influenced by certain ideas in tantra which, as we all should know, is where the left hand path originates from. I take influence both from the Buddhist branch and the Hindu one. The myths and practices around Kali in particular. And I also appreciate the Tao te Ching as I find that it in a lot of way correspond to Heraclitus.

What I want to say by this is that even though I may be atheistic in my view on life I do not hesitate to look into theistic systems (like the Hindu one) and realize that I can still learn a lot from them. Sure, to me their myths are only symbolic representations but to me it can help visualize the world and its possible foundations in quite a beautiful way.

 Quote:
She is naked and dark like a threatening rain cloud. She is dark, for she who is herself beyond mind and speech, reduces all things into that worldly "nothingness" which as the Void of all which we now know, is at the same time the All (purna) which is Light and Peace. . . . She stands upon the white corpse-like body of Shiva. He is white because He is illuminating transcendental aspect of Consciousness. He is inert because he is the changeless aspect of the Supreme, and she apparently changing aspect of the same. In truth, she and he are one and the same, being twin aspects of the One who is changelessness in, and exists as, change.


And while some people tend to believe the above quote to be literary true, a male and a female divine being of consciousness making up what we call the world, I see it as a beautiful poetic way of explaining that which I, and Heraclitus, find to be the base of the universe. That is that the only thing that is unchanging is change itself.

Top
#38032 - 04/23/10 08:34 AM Re: Prove it [Re: Mindmaster]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3115
 Quote:
Many Satanists read the TSB and like what they see, and then they refuse to do any leg work because "all of these things don't exist" or whatever. It is the standard cop-out! Exploring spiritual paths would make you un-Satanic or other such nonsense. I'm declaring war on you types as you are putrid wastes of humanity that would do much better as fertilizer than a Satanist. You are as weak as the Christians, but instead of having an open fear of spiritual awakening you have a backward-talking fear of the irrational. The defense to the positions they have is "shields up", thus neither know anything at all.

Tell me about your "awakening"...
"Spiritual enlightenment" is nothing more than some illusionairy feeling of this strange concept of "good"/"bad". What you call spiritual is what I call self-delusion, emotional reactions and exgageration. Spirituality (and likes) is but a term invented by man to give trivial actions and experiences this "catchy" tone.

Reading a book like the TSB is not "spiritual enlightment", it is plain fucking insight and recognition. Nothing more and nothing less. Even so, for every term starting with "spiritual ..." I can come up with a more accurate word which is less catchy but cuts the cheese much more smoothly.

 Quote:
Perhaps, you then could answer the question of why you live in the self-denial typically associated with Christians? Denial of the forces present within your own mind and that you have nothing in common with them nor derive no pleasure in that relationship! Verily, you mock it like a disappointed school-girl and seem disappointed that the boogie man didn't decide to show up at your house, but did visit your friends a night since passed!
Why is it always considered that atheistic visions, or visions that leave no place for "spooky" forces, contain self-denial? I say: know what you practice and practice what you know. Keep boiling in the self-delusion.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#38034 - 04/23/10 10:01 AM Re: Prove it [Re: Mindmaster]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
Re: Mindmaster

 Quote:
Surely, this view is unpopular with the types that frequent this forum... that there could be something not explained. Realize that all ideals, views, and beliefs are an ongoing process of evolution which requires the seeker to seek. Stasis is death in all things! LaVey's ideas were very good for his time, but are they comprehensive enough to explain the experiences we are having now? Are they to be regarded is a mere stepping stone on the journey? Only time will tell, but we have to keep moving forward or fall to the side as inferiority slips into the core of the philosophy.


Arguments for theism typically boil down to "well, I can FEEL the presence of God," or "Many smart people believe in God, so there." Correct me if I've over-generalized but it seems to be a case of the latter.

Theism is not evolution. It is not a step forward into brave new metaphysical territory. It's a step backwards; an old, tired superstition that assumes too much and shows too little.

 Quote:
Many Satanists read the TSB and like what they see, and then they refuse to do any leg work because "all of these things don't exist" or whatever. It is the standard cop-out! Exploring spiritual paths would make you un-Satanic or other such nonsense.


I call shenanigans on this one. Yes, some people who call themselves Satanists are lazy goodfornothings, but I think it was Nemesis that said a while ago that Satanism is not simply getting a blowjob and being able to enjoy it. Satanism, and the whole of the LHP for that matter, is a process of growth and self-mastery.

MawhrinSkel wrote of the "higher self" in relation to Nietzsche's idea of the Will to Power. I find myself in total agreement. You can call this, as I stated before, the Holy Guardian Angel, the inner daimonos, or what have you. It is what it is. This is akin to the maxim "Whether magic exists or not, it works."

The question is ultimately not about whether the voices and floods of ideas in your head comes from your own being or from some external deity. It's about whether or not they help you grow and develop as an individual in the process of apotheosis. However, most of us are skeptical, so we apply Occam's Razor in that the simplest explanation is usually the best-- ie, there is no supernatural, astral plane, telepathy, etc. Until there is some pressing need to reconsider, we will continue in our skepticism. This does not interfere with our Becoming, and in fact encourages it because it ensures we do not find ourselves holding any absurd beliefs simply out of "faith" like so many others do, and therefore falling into a self-destructive rut of stagnancy.

We are not "afraid" of some "force". We recognize this force; we call it Satan. However, we don't jump the gun and give it untenable supernatural attributes.

Neither are we afraid to explore other systems, or at least I'm not, as evidenced by my seemingly endless binge of religious and occult study, in addition to a rather nasty addiction to Ceremonial Magic.

I think, overall, you're making a false dichotomy. Perhaps if you could explain your beliefs or ideas a bit clearer we could address the issue more concisely.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#38035 - 04/23/10 10:05 AM Re: Prove it [Re: Dimitri]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
An interesting thread in this whole discussion is the linguistic one. I don’t doubt that the feeling people assert to words like "awakening" or "spiritual experience" is a fraud or is non-existent. I’m sure the feeling is there but the words we use to describe it differ depending on our worldview.

What for me may be called a rational realization may be what another person calls spiritual awakening even though the feeling causing us to put it into words is the same in both of us.

I have had a few experiences, most often when surrounded by wilderness, when I suddenly feel how things are connected. I guess this isn’t as much a rational understanding as it is an emotional one. I however do deny the existence of gods and spirits and I wouldn’t be comfortable calling this sensation I felt by the name divine. I do however think some people would indeed, and without hesitation, call the very same feeling by a divine name. I think it reflects the worldview one has before one experiences the feeling. Some Satanists might call it magical instead since magic is more accepted in satanic circles.

Anyway, these were some short reflections. Maybe a little bit off topic but I felt it still contributed to what was being discussed.


Edited by TheInsane (04/23/10 10:06 AM)

Top
#38038 - 04/23/10 05:48 PM Re: Prove it [Re: TheInsane]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
I have been following this thread,and I was hoping you could clairify your position.

You deny the existence of gods and spirits.
You feel an emotional connectedness to everything in the wilderness on occasion.

You believe there is no such thing as free will, thus everything is preordained.

Why?


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



Top
#38040 - 04/23/10 08:07 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Dimitri]
Mindmaster Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 68
Loc: Detroit, MI
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri

Tell me about your "awakening"...
"Spiritual enlightenment" is nothing more than some illusionairy feeling of this strange concept of "good"/"bad". What you call spiritual is what I call self-delusion, emotional reactions and exgageration. Spirituality (and likes) is but a term invented by man to give trivial actions and experiences this "catchy" tone.

Reading a book like the TSB is not "spiritual enlightment", it is plain fucking insight and recognition. Nothing more and nothing less. Even so, for every term starting with "spiritual ..." I can come up with a more accurate word which is less catchy but cuts the cheese much more smoothly.

Why is it always considered that atheistic visions, or visions that leave no place for "spooky" forces, contain self-denial? I say: know what you practice and practice what you know. Keep boiling in the self-delusion.



Unfortunately there isn't a more accurate term than spiritual for what I was writing about, and awakening is simply a shift in consciousness to a large degree and nothing really more. One could consider fully embracing Satanism to be one type of awakening, and there are many others. All of these situations have aspects that effect your "spiritual" proclivity whether that involves an acceptance of supernatural concepts or the denial that they in fact exist and that you will have nothing to do with them. It's basically impossible to convince anyone of anything if they won't hear it! Maybe if you have enough bullets, anyway.

If anything I was attempting to encourage some thought and exploration. That maybe very possibly there is more to the left hand path than many believe. I could prattle on about my personal experiences, but without my personal frame of reference they have very little meaning. Most of the events would seem very insignificant in total, but from a bird's eye view are like having a big arrow painted on the map of your life. Looking at my map won't help anyone else because I'm not standing where they are. Each individual has their own challenges in life, and their own set of limitations imposed by their upbringing and other factors. I would just be stabbing in the dark attempting to tell you how to reach that destination, so I'll spare you the bullshit. I just consider myself a student of life, so don't take any of that for some posturing on my part. I don't think I am any better or worse than anyone else.

Interestingly enough, "spooky forces" is not what I was eluding to. More that these forces are already present to a degree in ones own mind, and that is all the proof that is required. Its far more convincing that trying to prove the presence of some external idea that you may not currently be able to perceive. My only stretch of logic in this idea is that you must be able to rationalize something that exists in your own consciousness can exist outside of your own. To some existent that is as simple as finding another person that shares your feelings on a subject.

Modern psychology (yay science!) doesn't even deny the existence of these archetypes outside of an individual. In fact, if anything the concept of an archetype is just symbolic recognition of something that already exists. Of course, Carl Jung and Plato are known for their heavily deluded writing as classically they are the proponents of this idea! :P But, the fact that two or more people can experience or share this symbol of Satan means that it exists independently of them. Is it a walking talking Devil? Well.. why does it have to be? Does a creature composed of collective consciousness have a will? That's a question I can't really answer... My experiences to some degree bear out that such things do not exist and think as we do... At least for the purposes of ritual magic it is easier to assume they are since the human social machinery deals better with this conception. Of course you can start debating with me the existence of consciousness, but then we get are just getting silly. Sometimes I feel as though the "divine spark" I mentioned was simply the facility of that all the other animals on this rock seem to lack. We can override our biological programming if we need to, and other creatures simply can't. But, it's just an idea... I still haven't researched that to my satisfaction.

Spirituality however is simply the exploration of consciousness and not something to fear. Its a realm where you can't bring a pack full of microscopes and rulers. You have to do your own work to understand your own machinery and the only "stretch" is that the ancients believed that by understanding your microcosm that the macrocosm would unfold to you. The great thing about being a Satanist is you are able to explore without reservation, and that allows you to partake in anything that works in your journey. You can also just decide you're happy wherever you may be at the time the onerous being solely upon the individual.

A Satanic path doesn't necessarily conflict with a spiritual path as much as you would think. In my own case it has given me perspective and an even keel. It's good to have a whetstone to sharpen your ideas against and Satanism is a good bullshit detector on the whole. I incorporate a lot of classical thought and practice into my composite philosophy, but I make no assumption that will do for everyone. My practices are based on the assumption that: "I do not know everything, and things possibly exist outside of my perception" and that will not work for someone that believes: "I do know everything, and nothing exists outside of my understanding"

That's not a blind faith concept, but rather a realization of possibility. For some people that possibility can be painful, and I understand.

- Mind


Edited by Mindmaster (04/23/10 08:13 PM)

Top
#38044 - 04/23/10 09:40 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Mindmaster]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Originally Posted By: Mindmaster
So do you believe in some sort of idea of dark thought yourself that decides that you aren't entirely an Atheist only? Welp, you just found your Devil. Game over. Sure, I can explain.


I sure hope you can explain because so far you aren't making any sense.

 Originally Posted By: Mindmaster
The philosophers of the past from the times of Pythagoras to the Chaldeans, and the Cabalists all had the belief that "God" or the divine existed and man was created in its image, thus by logical extension "man" was accurately a microcosmic God containing of a divine spark. Thus, and contained within a man thus has a logical correspondence somewhere else in the universal pea soup which reflected the divine aspect of this particular form or archetype. As above, so below; so below, as above. Man, logically in conventional mysticism was a "mini-God" or self-contained universe of consciousness. We seem to function accordingly as well don't we? That which exists within us exists without us by this analogy. I guess when you don't have so many TV's and video games you spend your life trying to figure out things. :P


It doesn't seem like you have figured much out at all. Sure, people have believed all sorts of crazy things. It is important to remember that beliefs can be false, that is to say, wrong.


 Originally Posted By: Mindmaster
LaVey obviously drew from the sources of classical hermetic thought in his own books. It would be relatively silly to believe he didn't think anything of it when he gleened the materials in a somewhat altered form and penned them into The Satanic Bible. One doesn't trouble themselves with incorporating the ideas for which they don't believe in. But, LaVey was a pretty smart guy and probably realized the average waste of humanity on this rock doesn't care about their spiritual advancement. So he probably decided there was more gold to be had in Satanic tourism, and I'd tend to agree. What'd he personally believe? Well, do your homework and do the math... I doubt he'd bother to read Aleister Crowley, John Dee, or any of the other classical references if he thought it was 100% hogwash. It's truly hard to read through these types of things when you intellectually reject them completely as had been the case in my own youth.


LaVey incorporated the ideas of a lot of people when he wrote TSB. However, you stating this obvious fact does nothing in the way of proving the existence of Satan (or indeed any other super natural entity) - as was the purpose of this thread. I am not concerned with what LaVey believed or didn't believe; such a discussion has been done to death. Similarly, I am not concerned with what anyone else believes because, as I have already stated, beliefs can be wrong. What I am interested in the proof for validity of these beliefs.

 Originally Posted By: Mindmaster
To understand Crowley in particular you need a good backing in esoterica to understand anything the man writes. You need a comprehensive knowledge of correspondences just to make heads or tails of most of it. Conversely, TSB enochian keys are just adapted from Crowley's _Equinox_ publishing with every god word replaced with "Satan" or other minor alterations. Surely, one goes through all of this trouble for no apparent reason. :P I think LaVey had a very real perception of the forces that be, but it doesn't sell as many books and memberships. The Church of Satan probably neutered itself and became an entirely secular institution for this reason alone. It's far easier to get money from rich folks when you're just "playing" with the devil verses doing the devils work.


Again, I am not concerned with what people believe but why. And the only justification I can/will accept is one that provides undeniable proof. If you can not do that then you are really just wasting time.


 Originally Posted By: Mindmaster
All that being said, I probably would share your views if I didn't understand that a vehement disbelief of any concept is putting you in the same muddy water as those who have faith without reason. Your eyes are tightly closed in either case and do not aid any spiritual development or understanding. Classically, "The Devil" is in the details; If you seek self-gratification over self-denial, your will over "gods will", and seek to break free of conventions then you are obviously proving this existence of this force through your own action regardless of your beliefs. You can deny that those things exist but that doesn't change the obvious manifestation in your consciousness and by extension very real presence.


This "vehement disbelief" most certainly does not put me in the same boat as Christians when I can logically and rationally back up my reasons for my disbelief. My lack of belief is not faith based and therefore makes me pretty much diametrically opposed to the Christian mindset.


 Originally Posted By: Mindmaster
Perhaps, you then could answer the question of why you live in the self-denial typically associated with Christians? Denial of the forces present within your own mind and that you have nothing in common with them nor derive no pleasure in that relationship! Verily, you mock it like a disappointed school-girl and seem disappointed that the boogie man didn't decide to show up at your house, but did visit your friends a night since passed!


Self-denial? I am not practicing any form of self-denial. What I am practicing is a healthy skepticism of things that I can see no good reason for believing in. My mind is indeed open, just not so open that I run the risk of having my brain fall out.


 Originally Posted By: Mindmaster
Needless to say, I can't believe in the Satan someone else creates for me nor can you! But, I do believe one can reach inside to increase that power infinitely and perhaps experience it directly by extension which tends to be an accurate realization in relation to my own meanderings. This view is nothing new, and has been held by traditional mystics since the time of the ancient Egyptians and possibly before. I perhaps would view similarly to you if "Modern Satanism" could possibly be a large enough container for my experiences, but I have found it lacking in many ways. It perhaps accurately describes a traveler starting on a journey in earnest, but it is not very far along the left hand path that one realizes the insufficiencies. Nonetheless, it's very much a part of my core and a love the idealism of it validates it's personal relevance to me. It's a part of me, but I've become much more.


Arguments from personal i.e. subjective experiences do not amount to a rational basis for belief in anything no matter how much you wish it were so. Nor does the longevity of a belief make it anymore true - no matter how far back you can trace the origins of that belief.


 Originally Posted By: Mindmaster
Many Satanists read the TSB and like what they see, and then they refuse to do any leg work because "all of these things don't exist" or whatever. It is the standard cop-out! Exploring spiritual paths would make you un-Satanic or other such nonsense. I'm declaring war on you types as you are putrid wastes of humanity that would do much better as fertilizer than a Satanist. You are as weak as the Christians, but instead of having an open fear of spiritual awakening you have a backward-talking fear of the irrational. The defense to the positions they have is "shields up", thus neither know anything at all.


War? I find it funny that you try to compare me to a Christian yet you are the one who wants to declare war on anyone who doesn't think like you. But if it is war you want, then, well, bring it on I guess. I'm always up for a good a fight. \:\)


 Originally Posted By: Mindmaster
Surely, this view is unpopular with the types that frequent this forum... that there could be something not explained. Realize that all ideals, views, and beliefs are an ongoing process of evolution which requires the seeker to seek. Stasis is death in all things! LaVey's ideas were very good for his time, but are they comprehensive enough to explain the experiences we are having now? Are they to be regarded is a mere stepping stone on the journey? Only time will tell, but we have to keep moving forward or fall to the side as inferiority slips into the core of the philosophy.

I apologize for the length of this thanks for being patient. :P

- Mind


I can't speak for everyone who uses this forum but I personally do not make the assumption that the writings of LaVey explain everything. I accept that our understanding of the world and our place in it is constantly changing and I do not doubt the possibility of proof of things that I do not believe in surfacing. This possibility, however, is not enough reason to believe. It for that exact reason that I made this thread in the first place: to challenge people to prove it. Well, that and I was bored. \:D

Sorry, but you have failed. If you wish to try again please come a little more well prepared.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#38062 - 04/24/10 03:20 AM Re: Prove it [Re: Mindmaster]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3115
 Quote:
If anything I was attempting to encourage some thought and exploration. That maybe very possibly there is more to the left hand path than many believe. I could prattle on about my personal experiences, but without my personal frame of reference they have very little meaning. Most of the events would seem very insignificant in total, but from a bird's eye view are like having a big arrow painted on the map of your life. Looking at my map won't help anyone else because I'm not standing where they are. Each individual has their own challenges in life, and their own set of limitations imposed by their upbringing and other factors.

Ever heard about "specie-interaction"? You can have a much more effect on someone's life than you'll probably know. Even so, you might have some knowledge to share with people which is derived from your personal experiences. You are but a human, and every human will face a few events during his life. Those who have endured them can share the knowledge on "how to handle it". Taking a look at your map can be gratefull, on the sole condition you have information at hand which is valuable.

 Quote:
Interestingly enough, "spooky forces" is not what I was eluding to. More that these forces are already present to a degree in ones own mind, and that is all the proof that is required. Its far more convincing that trying to prove the presence of some external idea that you may not currently be able to perceive. My only stretch of logic in this idea is that you must be able to rationalize something that exists in your own consciousness can exist outside of your own. To some existent that is as simple as finding another person that shares your feelings on a subject.

I sense you belief in "spooke forces" and will continue to do so unless you get more accurate and start naming things. There is no "force" which is unnamed. Electromagnetism is a force, gravitation is a force,...
Everything has a name, I would like to hear that specific name. Talking about forces is vague and leaves room for bullshit and opportunities for quacks to mess with the mind.

 Quote:
Spirituality however is simply the exploration of consciousness and not something to fear. Its a realm where you can't bring a pack full of microscopes and rulers. You have to do your own work to understand your own machinery and the only "stretch" is that the ancients believed that by understanding your microcosm that the macrocosm would unfold to you.

The definition you give for spirituality is what I call studying and exploration of thought patterns. The only thing I need is a pen and some paper.
BTW: the "ancients" also told a lot of bullshit. But since you think like most humans, only those shots who were a bit right are remembered and the rest is being thrown away with the trash.
You may quote Plato and others, but what you "learn" now is but a condensed version. Some of his ideas clearly showed the lack of knowledge from his time. Some of his ideas were even retarded and at the same level of information the JoS now distributes.
But we like to look at the good things only, they are more important. The critics are easily tossed aside, the negative brain-farts are much more easily forgotten.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#38074 - 04/24/10 03:05 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Dimitri]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Morgan

You deny the existence of gods and spirits.
You feel an emotional connectedness to everything in the wilderness on occasion.

You believe there is no such thing as free will, thus everything is preordained.

Why?


The reason to deny gods and thus be atheistic is quite clear and something I don’t have to explain in deep – at least not on this forum. I don’t feel a need for such a thing and I haven’t come across any kind of objective or subjective proof that they exist.

On the free will debate I never actually argued for my position. I was trying to get Doomsage to realize that his belief in free will is just that belief and/or faith since scientifically it isn’t proven to exist. In fact science tends to disprove it.

I myself am not sure what position I hold in regards to will. Its one of those things whose theory I just haven’t been able to satisfy to myself. What I do know is that I do not regard anything as having a truly free will. However I do not believe that the universe, at large at least, is predetermined either. Quantum physics speaks against it for one and my basic view on the world does in part speak against it.

I have sometimes visualized will as a surfer riding on a wave. He can’t get off the wave but he can somewhat control what he is doing while on the wave. But as I said I don’t have a grand theory in regards to will.

On the feeling I have experienced in regards to how everything is connected in nature it is by no means meant as a grand theory of the whole. It’s just a flash of feelings that one can experience a deeper sense of every things place in nature and how it is all interconnected. I know athletes have similar experiences at times when they see things in slow motion and feels what move to do next.

Hope my answers are satisfying to you. If not feel free to ask again.

Top
#38424 - 05/10/10 01:58 PM Re: Prove it [Re: TheInsane]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
UNDENIABLE PROOF OF THE SUPERNATURAL AND PARANORMAL:

Today my computer was crashing repeatedly and would not function correctly. After hours of troubleshooting, I realized what the problem was-- my OS was possessed by malicious extradimensional entities! So I grabbed a ritual dagger and the Lemegeton off my bookshelf, and began reciting a potent and powerful exorcism, adjuring the foul demon that plagued my hard drive, and commanding it to begone henceforth in the mighty and holy names of ADONAY ELOHIM et JEHOVA.

Pointing the dagger intimidatingly at the monitor and holding the book before me, I belligerently reminded the wicked spirit of its sinfulness and fall from grace, promising that if it did not stop crashing my PC, immediately and without delay, by the power of the Father, Sonne, and Holie Ghost, it was sure to be smitten with sacred fire and cast down into the darkest pits of Hell.

Once I felt the demonic presence emerge, I seized the invisible spirit, which stunk with foul and sulfurous breath. Struggling with this preternatural foe, I wrestled it over to the bathroom and forced it down the toilet, holding the lid down as I flushed the unholy abomination down to the bottomless abyss of Abaddon.

Needless to say, my computer functions perfectly now. If extremely reliable testimony isn't enough for you guys, I don't know what is.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#38427 - 05/10/10 03:38 PM Re: Prove it [Re: The Zebu]
Mindmaster Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 68
Loc: Detroit, MI
LOL! Yep, that happens to me all the time. The nature of demons and spirits is always an interesting subject, but I'll save it for another post. Most black magick practitioners these days wouldn't bother with the summoning of inferior entities at this point when you could just as well be working with the Gods. Seems sort of silly to deal to take up your issues with a subordinate when you have a hotline to the boss. I can agree that most of the information in classic grimoires are rather ridiculous but they are also steeped in the brain damaged Judeo-Christian mindset of the common populace at the time. Most of these things were written at a time where people who believed in anything contrary to the mainstream were killed so this fact must be considered. Between the lumps of dirt lie the diamonds, but there is a lot of digging before you find anything. Modern practices shift away from puritanical bible references as they have been found to be completely unnecessary. I'm even pretty leery of the use of Shemhamforash in satanic ritual because it was traditionally said this way to avoid defaming the actual 72 letter name of God much in the way that Tetragrammaton was used instead of YHVH (or Yahweh/Jehovah). I would figure a Satanist would be perhaps be more interested in using the actual name in the sense of defiance, and not even to use it at all as some silly chant after ringing a bell. Its a mnemonic for a name of God and you might as well be saying Adonai (Lord, God) or YHVH (Jehovah) at that point. Lets poke some fun at ourselves first shall we?

You really can't prove anything to anyone. They must believe in the metrics and the preliminary information that you do or they can't see any apparent fact. The only proof existent is in the mind of the viewer with all phenomena and whether they will accept the information!

Remember, you are not deactivating your skeptical facilities by having knowledge of things you cannot explain. I do not pretend to know all the answers but I collect information and observe. I generally don't view one or two coincidences as significant, but I have observed situations where I have seen I don't know... like... ten? That's far beyond the realm of the random event generator. It is for reasons such as this that many occult researchers kept diaries of their experiences. It was the only way they could reference all of these happenings and come to any sort of a conclusion.

We are in a unique position at this time in human history to research any subject of interest with a depth never before known. Religious opposition and societal prejudices can't stop us, so lets work toward finding the truth honestly. Don't let the biases of those that came before you limit your experiences. Break out of the mold and become responsible for your own evolution!

Top
#40151 - 07/13/10 01:49 AM Re: Prove it [Re: Mindmaster]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



‘This is fun really... 'ere we go! So do you believe in some sort of idea of dark thought yourself that decides that you aren't entirely an Atheist only? Welp, you just found your Devil. Game over. Sure, I can explain.’ Mindmaster.

I am a bit late here, but wanted to comment on this anyway.

I like this quote, but feel that it needs some clarifying and polishing to be more resilient and clear.

The below statement is the crux of the matter, without the additional material:

‘So do you believe in some sort of idea of dark thought yourself that decides that you aren’t an Atheist only? Well, you have just found your Devil.’

Some points:

• I don’t need to believe in some sort of idea of dark thought. If I am experiencing an idea of dark thought, then I automatically believe in it because it is present to consciousness.
• I don’t have an idea of dark thought. I, in fact, have a thought which I define as dark, in accordance with the standards I have adopted or which my society has imposed on me.
• That thought, which I have and define as dark, originates with me and cannot be said to truly deny my philosophical conviction that I am an Atheist because I cannot legitimately identify it originating with a supernatural entity existing independently outside of myself.

I recognise and acknowledge an innate core of genuine subjectivity and potential buried deep inside my head, which is beyond culture and history and which is not subject to the metaphysical and social detritus which characterises my society and the role I may be expected to play within my society.

I share this innate core and potential with those thousands of generations of my descendants (stretching back thousands and thousands of years into the past) whom I love and admire, though the vast majority of them are unknown to me.

This quintessential me, which remains buried under thousands of years of social convention and conditioned subjectivity I have named with the signifier of Satan. It is my most precious core and can also be named the black flame. Satan, in this context, is deeply personal and important to me.

I see Satanism (just one aspect, mind you) as a concerted attempt to re-establish and celebrate the legitimate relationship between nature and culture. At this time I feel that attempting to install theism into the heart of Satanism would be to continue to muddy and blur the lines between a legitimate nature and culture.

I appreciate, however, any attempt to answer this fundamental question of what or who is Satan.

Top
#42311 - 08/23/10 06:23 PM Re: Prove it [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
WickedPup Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/10/10
Posts: 10
Actually took the time to read through all of this. Alot of it just seems to be on repeat and redundant merely for the sake of argument.

As a start: I AM NOT A THEIST. In any sense of the word. I have never seen any reason for a power greater than myself, or for that matter, a power that gives myself purpose or reason besides the purposes and reasons I make.
With that out of the way...

From what I've seen, there is no objective or scientific data that proves OR disproves the existence of a "god" entity. The absence of belief in a "higher" power is the same as believing that this is no "higher" power. There is no absence of belief, just a difference in it.

Just cuz some people don't see any use in it doesn't mean that others can't find use in it. Reality and belief is subjective to each individual. I'm not trying to encourage a "hugfest" here. I just want to point out the futility of arguing between theists and atheists.

Atheist: "You believe in god? Well then where the fuck is he?"
Theist: "I have faith and I can feel it in and around me"
Atheist: "You're stupid."
Theist: "You're ignorant"
Atheist: "Prove there is a god"
Theist: "Prove there isn't"

It's completely fucking pointless and just gets people heated for no reason other than their beliefs are being challenged.
Atheists have as much faith in the lack of a higher power as much as theists have faith in the existence of it.

Along with the challenge for theists to prove objectively the existence of their higher power, I would like to see the exact scientific formula that proves there is no external entity that isn't based on theoretics.

Top
#42312 - 08/23/10 06:38 PM Re: Prove it [Re: WickedPup]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
There is a huge difference between claiming something exists and rejecting that claim. They are not at all two equal sides of the same coin.

For starters, it is logically impossible to prove a universal negative. Saying 'prove x doesn't exist' is a logically incoherent statement. Truth value can only be ascertained for the positive claim.

Secondly, faith is not epistemology. Nothing can be known through faith, as all faith claims, even mutually exclusive ones, are equal.

If one values undefiled wisdom, and actively shuns self deciet(as any Satanist worth his salt should), these are important talking points.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#42314 - 08/23/10 06:53 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Dan_Dread]
WickedPup Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/10/10
Posts: 10
The only difference I can see is where one says I do the other says I don't.
I wasn't trying to make any relation to epistemology. Faith is the acceptance of any idea, or belief in that idea be it a thought, a person, an ideal, a principle, etc. While epistemology is the study of truth, faith is the realm of an accepted truth. Any metaphysical "truth" is subjective, including the idea of a god.
We have faith that the worlds most renown scientists are fucking up, which, they occasionally due. The difference is that we also have faith they'll go back and correct their mistakes, alter their theories and make such more accurate. While faith in a supreme being doesn't allow that being to come back and fix his fuck ups.

I'll grant that asking someone to prove the unprovable is illogical. That was the whole point. I fail to see how either side has proof other than theories and faith. Its just a matter of personal preference.
Nothing productive comes from trying to tell people they're wrong with no objective way to prove it, in either sense.


Edited by WickedPup (08/23/10 06:55 PM)

Top
#42315 - 08/23/10 07:10 PM Re: Prove it [Re: WickedPup]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
Actually took the time to read through all of this. Alot of it just seems to be on repeat and redundant merely for the sake of argument.


Well yes, this thread was indeed made merely for the sake of argument. At the time I made this thread there was a lot of talk about the existence of Satan as a deity.(Though one member in particular chooses to use a different name.)

Knowing that the subject had come up before, and would undoubtedly rear its ugly head again, I decided to create this thread to challenge people to prove their claims. So far I am still waiting for that to happen. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

 Quote:
From what I've seen, there is no objective or scientific data that proves OR disproves the existence of a "god" entity.


No there hasn't, however, every little bit of scientific knowledge that we can glean makes the possibility less and less likely. As far as I am concerned the Xian god most definitely does not exist. The Bible itself is great reason to doubt it.

 Quote:
The absence of belief in a "higher" power is the same as believing that this is no "higher" power. There is no absence of belief, just a difference in it.


No it isn't. I will refer you back to Dan's post and the issue of proving a negative.

I will add to it further by saying, as I have before, that faith and disbelief are not the same thing. Faith is belief without proof or good reason to believe and/or belief despite evidence to the contrary. I have good reason for not believing in any gods and there is much evidence to suggest that religious claims are false. Therefore my disbelief is not faith.

 Quote:
Just cuz some people don't see any use in it doesn't mean that others can't find use in it. Reality and belief is subjective to each individual.


I never said people couldn't find use in their beliefs but that doesn't make those beliefs any less irrational. And reality is only somewhat subjective to each individuals. There are somethings that apply to all people. That there is no man in the sky who is keeping track of everything we do or a cloven footed demon who tortures souls for all eternity is just one of them.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#42317 - 08/23/10 07:46 PM Re: Prove it [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: WP

I fail to see how either side has proof other than theories and faith.

There isn't really sides, as far as I see things. One one hand you have people making wild claims that aren't supported by any evidence, and on the other, reasonable people that do not give weight to claims that are not supported by evidence, or claims that are logically impossible.

As an example, lets look at standard christian based monotheism. There is no evidence in support of the claim that an omnimax deity exists, and further it's existence is logically impossible for several reasons. There is also ample evidence that people create gods via religion, and that many are mutually exclusive shows they are in fact, manufactured by man. Can you really say that believing and not believing are equal and opposite?

To say that believing things that ARE supported by logic and evidence is the same as believing things that are not seems an incoherent position to me.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#42336 - 08/24/10 02:26 AM Re: Prove it [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
WickedPup Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/10/10
Posts: 10
 Quote:
So far I am still waiting for that to happen. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

Honestly, it seems irrational to expect that anyone could validate their claims. Regardless of belief, we're debating via internet. I'm sure we're all aware of the wild ass claims that people make on a daily basis via the interwebs. Rationality and knowledge are essential to sifting through the bullshit that people want to say, and I appreciate your explanation for why this thread was started. But seriously, I'm sure you didn't expect anything other than pointless argument to evolve from such a thread. To expect otherwise seems ignorant.

 Quote:
No there hasn't, however, every little bit of scientific knowledge that we can glean makes the possibility less and less likely. As far as I am concerned the Xian god most definitely does not exist. The Bible itself is great reason to doubt it

Aye,completely agreed. Despite what people may try to spread through "christian science"(oxymoron?), there is no proof or theory which honestly suggests their god. Or any "god" for that matter. The singularity principle seems acceptable to me, but not in any way they try to espouse. Even multi dimensional theory seems to accept that on any given plane, our laws of physics would persist.

 Quote:
I will add to it further by saying, as I have before, that faith and disbelief are not the same thing. Faith is belief without proof or good reason to believe and/or belief despite evidence to the contrary. I have good reason for not believing in any gods and there is much evidence to suggest that religious claims are false. Therefore my disbelief is not faith.


Disbelief does not equal the opposite of faith. I agree with that. Your disbelief in an external entity does not equal the opposite of the belief in one. I agree with that. The belief that there is nothing else IS the opposite of the beliefthat there is something though. I do not equate disbelief with the belief in nothing.
Disbelief follows skepticism. And that is merely a doubting and questioning attitude. I feel that is essential to Satanism in general as well as to independent and human thought. But unless we aim at redefining terms(which I truly fucking love to do), we're stuck with the differences.

To be honest,I haven't seen a single decent response in defense for "theism" in any sense through this thread. The only logical backing for the "man in the sky" is through the acceptance of external living entities following physics to visit this planet and fuck it up. But even the people who believe that are grasping at random theories and ideas with very very very small objective reasoning.

There is an insane amount of data which disproves any "man in the sky" religion, theory or other such nonsense. But from what I can tell, there is nothing which can prove that there is nothing out there.

This is where skepticism plays its part. To weed through the nonsense. This is also where faith plays its part. To believe/ accept which parts are nonsense and disregard others is largely an act of faith. There are massive loads of objective data culminating in that all things in this universe follow the laws of physics, as such, it follows that any omnipotent "being" is objectively flawed in reasoning. In the sense that there IS an omnipotent being, I thoroughly disagree. Nothing, ever, (save personal delusion) supposes such ideas.
But in a different sense, there is a large amount of data suggesting a "universal data spread", or, in mundane terms, an energy that is all encompassing. Now heres where I take issue...

"Energy" in itself, is an amazingly subjective word. It really shouldn't be, but until english refines its concepts down to singular terms, we're stuck with it. "God" is another wonderfully subjective term, with far far more definitions than are dictionary bound. Combine the two and we sometimes wind up with shit like nature worship and buddhism.
It truly is a sad thing that most theists aren't into science, or theyd realize that what they're attempting to explain is coming off severely retarded.

Okay.. ..

My definition of what a "god" is, is extremely different than what most theists believe. I thoroughly encourage challenging any theist who claims in an anthropomorphic entity. It quite simply doesn't make sense. But I have always seen such things as mythology, and recognizing others beliefs in such things has always seemed encouraging it. Kinda like Santa Claus or other such shit.
kid: Santa is coming!
Adult: wtf is a santa?
kid: hes the person who visits all the houses on xmas to deliver presents
Adult: in no way at all does that make logical sense. Stop it.
(thats a poor example, I know. In many cases adults encourage the belief in santa to get kids to chill the fuck out for a couple months, but even then that person is using a mythology to his advantage in an objective sense. while there doesn't seem to be any objective justification for such things as the xian god...I have nothing to follow that one lol..)

blah... By straight up asking for someone to prove the existence in a "god", it usually just encourages their belief in the fact that we are denying it. Its a fucked up concept, but deal with xians for a few years head on, and you'll see what I mean. Its a psychological matter that I haven't really seemed to figure out yet. (irrationality is a messed up thing)

I think it'd be much more productive to maintain arguments like this as personal side arms until someone says something completely fucking stupid. But I can see where this could get tiring from attempting to shoot down the same bird without much success. Hence the futility of such argumentation.


Actually, I'll offer up a new challenge...
Instead of trying to PROVE the existence of an external entity, I want someone to explain WHY they believe in that external entity. Forgive me if someone has attempted already in this thread for that challenge, but I haven't seen anything worth recognizing through here to support it.

Top
#42338 - 08/24/10 02:38 AM Re: Prove it [Re: Dan_Dread]
WickedPup Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/10/10
Posts: 10
 Quote:
There isn't really sides, as far as I see things.

There are those that believe in an external entity and those that don't. There isn't a line drawn?

 Quote:
One one hand you have people making wild claims that aren't supported by any evidence, and on the other, reasonable people that do not give weight to claims that are not supported by evidence, or claims that are logically impossible.

Two hands equal two points, two points either rest on sides or ends of a line, and these two view points don't rest anywhere near the same line.
 Quote:
As an example, lets look at standard christian based monotheism

Ughh.... I'd rather not. Causes my knowledge pain...(lol)..
 Quote:
There is also ample evidence that people create gods via religion, and that many are mutually exclusive shows they are in fact, manufactured by man.

I have no complaint whatsoever towards this. I hold this as a well defined fact of life and belief.
 Quote:
Can you really say that believing and not believing are equal and opposite?

I seriously hope I just clarified this a post earlier. Belief in nothing is the opposite in the belief in something. I'm not arguing objectively with that one. I do not see disbelief as the same thing as the belief in nothing. This may be a matter of semantics, if so, lets just fucking forget the whole concept, k? \:D

 Quote:
To say that believing things that ARE supported by logic and evidence is the same as believing things that are not seems an incoherent position to me

Honestly, I agree with that. Bleh, I think this is just an issue of clarity on my part.

Once again.. I DO NOT SUPPORT THEISM OF ANY KIND. Hell, I only partially understand the reasons why people believe in such things. I haven't seen a single effort to prove "god"(in any sense) that followed the essential laws of this universe that the majority of us have accepted(x.X I honestly have seen xians shutdown in the face of contradiction. It is possibly one of the most disturbing things I've ever witnessed. To watch someone be confronted by infallible evidence that contradicts their belief, and then proceed to quite literally shut down their cognitive abilities and walk away is just immensely depressing). It truly seems a delusion to me.
I think the issue with the part of the argument I'm aiming at is merely semantic and definition based, instead of objectively based. If so, my apologies.

Top
#42346 - 08/24/10 10:54 AM Re: Prove it [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
Every now and then this site gets people who maintain that Satan, as an actual living entity, exists. I invite all who make such claims to prove it.

Disclaimer: Do NOT try to use faith as proof. I do not care if you can "just feel" its presence, I want undeniable, verifiable proof. If you can not do this then please do not assert any such claims as fact.


"You can't argue with belief." This is a phrase I've used my whole life to remind me of exactly this type of discussion.

Science, by it's own definition, has its scope limited to the physical world. Most stereotypical objects of faith (ie the Abrahamic God) are defined as existing outside that world. Both sides, therefore, have already agreed that science and logic cannot be applied to those types of objects (or concepts, or whatever label you give it). There cannot be proof of such things, by the very definition of "proof".

On the other hand, there can certainly be argument (in the vulgar, not-classical-Logic form). People will argue about anything, as we've seen here. But, as we've also seen, such argument is pointless, as you cannot convince someone to change their beliefs via such argument.

That last statement also applies to someone who is not willing to be open-minded, regardless of topic (I think that was mentioned earlier in the thread, too). Even if the discussion is about something that could be logically argued (in the Classical sense), if one party stubbornly won't follow the set of proofs - eg, they believe they already know the "truth" - there's also no point in arguing (either formally or classically).

Unless both sides are willing to communicate and learn, such discussion is basically a waste of time. That's what "You can't argue with belief" means to me.

(Cue Monty Python "I'd like to have an argument" skit)
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#42353 - 08/24/10 03:36 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Autodidact]
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
Claiming that something is real, yet exists outside the perceivable universe, and therefore can only be observed by those blessed by said something, is a bit of a losing proposition in my book. It's pretty much identical to having an imaginary friend.

Claiming that no such something exists, by comparison, requires no proof. Proving a negative is also a losing proposition. Plenty of things have been proven to exist, and the list grows longer every time a new species is discovered or a new cure for a grave illness is invented.

Making a claim that a supernatural deity exists requires proof. I don't think this is too much to ask. If no such proof exists, then the claim is null and void. No tithes or genuflections, thank you. Faith often hides behind this "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" umbrella you mention, but that doesn't lend it credence in the least. I think people should be allowed to believe whatever they want, but the moment I am required to believe on flimsy evidence, we are no longer in the realm of "Non-Overlapping Magisteria", but the realm of "proselytizing thought police inquisition bastards", which we all know and despise.

Faith and non-faith are not equal. They are not two sides of the same coin. They are antithetical to each other.

Oh, and the argument? "I told you once." "No, you didn't." "Yes, I did." "When?" "Just now." "No, you didn't."
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#42359 - 08/24/10 04:53 PM Re: Prove it [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: SkaffenAmtiskaw

Making a claim that a supernatural deity exists requires proof. I don't think this is too much to ask.


It is too much to ask. The very nature of faith is such that no proof is required. You said yourself faith and non-faith are antithetical to each other.

You will never receive proof of a supernatural deity, because there can be none. (At least, I cannot think of any set of evidence that would make me think, "Oh, yeah, clearly that proves that a god exists outside of the known universe.")

And so you (we, Satanists, et al.) will never be "convinced" by any particular group of "faithful". (Which is fine - I would doubt the sanity of anyone on this list who could be so convinced.)

The faithful and non-faithful will never convince/convert each other - argument between believer and non-believer is a waste of time. That was my point.

"It's not just saying 'No, it isn't'."
"Yes it is."
"No, it isn't!"
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#42360 - 08/24/10 04:58 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Autodidact]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
You will never receive proof of a supernatural deity, because there can be none.


And did you ever consider that maybe this was my point?

Since no proof can be given then perhaps people should just shut up all together about it.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#42361 - 08/24/10 05:13 PM Re: Prove it [Re: WickedPup]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
But from what I can tell, there is nothing which can prove that there is nothing out there.


Well, I am sure there is lots of stuff "out there" - just not any deities.

 Quote:
"Energy" in itself, is an amazingly subjective word. It really shouldn't be, but until english refines its concepts down to singular terms, we're stuck with it.


"Energy" is a very defined word; it is the amount of work that can be performed by a quantity of force. It's just that people have bastardized the word and used it to try and make their claims sound more valid. Just last night I had someone give me the whole "energy can not be created or destroyed" routine in an attempt to try and argue in favor of reincarnation.

 Quote:
Instead of trying to PROVE the existence of an external entity, I want someone to explain WHY they believe in that external entity.


Essentially those are the same things. I'm an interested in the proof that translates into the "why". Really the only answer a person can give, without providing actual proof, is "because I want it to be true" or some variation thereof.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#42394 - 08/25/10 01:53 AM Re: Prove it [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
WickedPup Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/10/10
Posts: 10
 Quote:
Just last night I had someone give me the whole "energy can not be created or destroyed" routine in an attempt to try and argue in favor of reincarnation.

I was actually a proponent of this argument for a long fuckin time. That is, until I started to study more into actual physics. The information is always there, it just wouldn't be recognizable in any way or form, along with the notion that the distorted information expelled by humanity could actually make itself back into a life form is somewhat ridiculous.
 Quote:
Really the only answer a person can give, without providing actual proof, is "because I want it to be true" or some variation thereof

Thats the only answer I've ever been able to accept for a theist from any religion. Most people start rambling off useless nonsense that is only barely linked to whatever existence they're trying to prove. But for someone to just be like "I believe it because I believe it" is hard to argue. Its not the most logical or rational but at least it shows some acceptance in their own beliefs rather than relying on outside sources to prove to attempt to prove things for them. Last conversation I had with a theist that ended like that, we both just dropped it. Kinda an understanding that theres no point in arguing it at that point.

Top
#42431 - 08/25/10 01:57 PM Re: Prove it [Re: WickedPup]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
And being that this is a Satanism forum, faith based claims should be abhorred as much as typos and bad grammar seem to be.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#42757 - 09/04/10 04:41 AM Re: Prove it [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Syn_Holliday Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/18/10
Posts: 25
Loc: West Covina, CA
Sure, it's virtually impossible for any Christian theist, regardless of which side of the coin they're on, to defend their belief without resorting to faith. But sometimes it's interesting to hear how creative they can get. The ones that can admit to themselves that it's entirely based on faith won't even enter the discussion, so what you get are those who actually feel they have a chance at proving the existence of their deity through rational argument. For some of them, it's somewhat embarassing to admit something they hold so dear and personal has no basis other than faith. When people point it out, they take it personally and are lured into the discussion.
Top
#42760 - 09/04/10 07:57 AM Re: Prove it [Re: Syn_Holliday]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
Sure, it's virtually impossible for any Christian theist, regardless of which side of the coin they're on, to defend their belief without resorting to faith.


It is impossible for any theist, Christian or otherwise, to defend their beliefs without resorting to faith. If you had read this thread and/or paid attention you would understand that was the point behind creating it in the first place.

 Quote:
But sometimes it's interesting to hear how creative they can get.


Yes, most of the time it is just annoying to hear others blather on about their imaginary friends and what they have to offer if I would just shut my brain off and believe.

 Quote:
The ones that can admit to themselves that it's entirely based on faith won't even enter the discussion, so what you get are those who actually feel they have a chance at proving the existence of their deity through rational argument.


If only that were really the case. The truth is that most of those who "enter the discussion" have nothing but faith to use as evidence and, worst of all, they think their faith constitutes a rational argument.

 Quote:
For some of them, it's somewhat embarassing to admit something they hold so dear and personal has no basis other than faith. When people point it out, they take it personally and are lured into the discussion.


And those people have no business posting in this thread.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#42775 - 09/04/10 04:27 PM Re: Prove it [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Syn_Holliday Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/18/10
Posts: 25
Loc: West Covina, CA
 Quote:
If you had read this thread and/or paid attention you would understand that was the point behind creating it in the first place.

And if you noticed the simple word "sure" that the statement started with, you would have realized that I was stating my agreement with the initial post (logically, I would have had to read the post first in order to agree with it).

 Quote:
Yes, most of the time it is just annoying to hear others blather on about their imaginary friends and what they have to offer if I would just shut my brain off and believe.

And that's when those who have no interest would simply ignore. I wouldn't assume every topic would interest everyone.

 Quote:
If only that were really the case. The truth is that most of those who "enter the discussion" have nothing but faith to use as evidence and, worst of all, they think their faith constitutes a rational argument.

And there are those who attempt to prove it beyond faith. Some are quite amusing in the new approaches they devise to rationalize their belief, same as Christians. Again, no assumption everyone would find this amusing.

 Quote:
And those people have no business posting in this thread.

Huh? Isn't the topic of this post exactly that, asking them to prove it?

Top
#42778 - 09/04/10 08:24 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Syn_Holliday]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
I ignore a fair amount of stuff that gets posted on this board. However, somethings can't be ignored because ignoring them sends the message that you will put up with it. "It" in this case being the contention that there are gods and/or devils. I'm of the opinion that some things aren't even worth entertaining; faith-based beliefs being near the top of that list.

The point of this thread is for people to prove their belief without resorting to faith. The people who I said have no business posting here are the people who resort to faith. Again, if you had read what I just wrote you would understand that.

Really this whole thing is obviously way beyond your comprehension.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#42795 - 09/05/10 03:23 PM Re: Prove it [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Syn_Holliday Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/18/10
Posts: 25
Loc: West Covina, CA
 Quote:
somethings can't be ignored because ignoring them sends the message that you will put up with it.

 Quote:
some things aren't even worth entertaining; faith-based beliefs being near the top of that list.

So basically, you're saying it's not worth entertaining, yet it can't be ignored. You're going to entertain it, even though it's not worth entertaining. You're going to entertain something not worth entertaining.

 Quote:
It is impossible for any theist, Christian or otherwise, to defend their beliefs without resorting to faith

If you already realized this, then why start the post? What responses were you looking to entertain? What was the purpose?

 Quote:
Really this whole thing is obviously way beyond your comprehension.

And why get personal? Unable to remain objective?

Top
#42797 - 09/05/10 03:37 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Syn_Holliday]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Okay, since you are too fucking to dumb to figure it out I will spell it out for you:

This thread was created for theists to prove their claims are valid without resorting to faith. The reality is, they can't. Therefore, this thread is really saying "don't spew your bullshit theistic beliefs on this forum".

Was that really so hard to comprehend?
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#42803 - 09/05/10 04:25 PM Re: Prove it [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Syn_Holliday Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/18/10
Posts: 25
Loc: West Covina, CA
Asking them to prove it, but then expecting them not to attempt to prove it.

"Don't spew your bullshit theistic beliefs on this forum." Why not just say that then? And is there a 600 Club rule already against it? I didn't see it in the FAQ rules of conduct, but perhaps there is another area that I am unaware of that addresses it.

Top
#42806 - 09/05/10 04:44 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Syn_Holliday]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
I only want people to attempt it if they have something other than faith. What about that do you not understand?

From the Rules & Guidelines:

 Quote:
If you have a conflict with anyone's posts or beliefs, present your post using the weapons of logic and rationale or keep it to yourself or you will be banned.


As an Atheist, anyone who holds theistic beliefs is directly in conflict with my beliefs. Since theism can not be backed up by logic and/or rationale, people have no business making posts that espouse theistic beliefs.

 Quote:
We discourage you from posting material of a "white-light" or Right-Hand Path nature to this site, the boards are already filled with topics like this.


As far as I am concerned, ALL theism is RHP.

It took me all of 30 seconds to find those.

Now, unless you are going to argue theism, without resorting to faith, kindly fuck off. \:\)
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#42810 - 09/05/10 06:45 PM Re: Prove it [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Syn_Holliday Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/18/10
Posts: 25
Loc: West Covina, CA
 Quote:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for ANY theist, Christian or otherwise, to defend their beliefs without resorting to faith. If you had read this thread and/or paid attention you would understand that was the point behind creating it in the first place.

and...

 Quote:
I only want people to ATTEMPT it if they have something other than faith. What about that do you not understand?

If you conclude that it is IMPOSSIBLE for any theist to defend belief without resorting to faith, then what was the reason for starting this thread? If it was impossible for anyone to do so, then what sort of intelligent discussion were you intending to spark? You should know that doing so would only encourage discussion that you already said annoys you. Why instigate it?

 Quote:
Most of the time it is just annoying to hear others blather on about their imaginary friends

 Quote:
And those people have no business posting in this thread

If a theist thought he/she was able to explain the belief with logic and reason, there would have been a thread created. From there, a discussion could begin rationally debating the merits of the claim. Nothing needs to be said on the topic, otherwise you would be contributing to further discussion on it.
\:\)

Top
#42820 - 09/06/10 07:25 AM Re: Prove it [Re: Syn_Holliday]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3115
 Quote:
If you conclude that it is IMPOSSIBLE for any theist to defend belief without resorting to faith, then what was the reason for starting this thread?

Ever heard of subtle sarcasm?

And now it isn't a one liner anymore.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#42825 - 09/06/10 12:45 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Dimitri]
Syn_Holliday Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/18/10
Posts: 25
Loc: West Covina, CA
Sure, subtle sarcasm is fine, but hypocrisy is looked down upon. When someone claims to be annoyed with a certain topic but then instigates discussion on it, that isn't sarcasm.
Top
#42826 - 09/06/10 12:45 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Syn_Holliday]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Taking snippets of quotes from other posts and putting them together as if one followed the other only serves to prove that you're an idiot. Now, fuck off.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#42833 - 09/06/10 02:34 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Syn_Holliday]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
 Originally Posted By: Syn_Holliday
Sure, subtle sarcasm is fine, but hypocrisy is looked down upon. When someone claims to be annoyed with a certain topic but then instigates discussion on it, that isn't sarcasm.


What would you say that the role of hypocrisy in lieu of a theist would be?

I am curious here because you claim that 6 is being a hypocrite via his starting of thread that is only set on the basis of essentially the theist FAILING in their explanation of how the supernatural exists.

There is really only ONE way that a theist could prove anything to an Atheist and even then, most would go back to science before they would ever entertain what they saw was more supernatural than merely supernormal.

Therefore, the faith bent theist can only rely on their responses of, it is because I say it is. What YOU gotta understand is, even though I understand your viewpoint.. just because something is because you say it is, doesn't mean that my statement of it ISN'T because I say it isn't, is any less valid, my dear.
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#42841 - 09/06/10 09:39 PM Re: Prove it [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Syn_Holliday Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/18/10
Posts: 25
Loc: West Covina, CA
 Quote:
Taking snippets of quotes from other posts and putting them together as if one followed the other only serves to prove that you're an idiot. Now, fuck off.

A bit emotional?

Top
#42843 - 09/06/10 09:56 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Syn_Holliday]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
 Originally Posted By: Syn_Holliday
 Quote:
Taking snippets of quotes from other posts and putting them together as if one followed the other only serves to prove that you're an idiot. Now, fuck off.

A bit emotional?


That wasn't emotional. That was a dismissal.
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#42844 - 09/06/10 10:00 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Syn_Holliday]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
When someone claims to be annoyed with a certain topic but then instigates discussion on it, that isn't sarcasm.


It is not the topic that annoys me it is the way people go about making these claims i.e. faith based arguments. Again, if you had a reading comprehension above that of a 3rd grader you would have understood that by now. No one else seems to have a hard time understanding it.

 Quote:
A bit emotional?


LOL! I am hardly emotional; I would just prefer it if you would fuck off as you are not participating in this thread the way it was intended. So, I say, for the third time: fuck off.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#42846 - 09/06/10 10:21 PM Re: Prove it [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Syn_Holliday Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/18/10
Posts: 25
Loc: West Covina, CA
I think you misunderstood my point. The hypocrisy I was referring to didn't relate to proving theist belief.
Top
#42847 - 09/06/10 10:24 PM Re: Prove it [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Syn_Holliday Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/18/10
Posts: 25
Loc: West Covina, CA
 Quote:
So, I say, for the third time: fuck off.

And you really believe that will get someone to stop posting? By the way, yes, that is an emotional response.

Top
#42848 - 09/06/10 10:28 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Syn_Holliday]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
I am more qualified than you to say what I get emotional about. Now please fuck off before a Mod or Admin locks this thread. You have absolutely nothing of value to offer.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#42849 - 09/06/10 10:31 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Syn_Holliday]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
 Originally Posted By: Syn_Holliday
I think you misunderstood my point. The hypocrisy I was referring to didn't relate to proving theist belief.


What point exactly were you going for considering the thread topic was pretty much proving theism? Which DID march right along into hypocrisy.. as per the quote I quoted YOU on. Simple question, simple answer.
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#42857 - 09/07/10 04:03 AM Re: Prove it [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Lamar Offline
member


Registered: 02/03/10
Posts: 226
Loc: Alabama
Uuuuh, I've got one, who cares? If there is a dedicated theist or Atheist most likely that person will not be swayed into changing. They will remain the same. So...who cares? Waste of breath. Or typing.
Top
#42858 - 09/07/10 04:10 AM Re: Prove it [Re: Lamar]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
And yet another person who is too stupid to understand simple concepts. No one said anything about trying to sway the opinions of others. This thread was created in order to challenge theists to prove their beliefs. Since you are not trying to do that then you can find your way out of this thread along with Mr. purple hair.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#42860 - 09/07/10 04:16 AM Re: Prove it [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Lamar Offline
member


Registered: 02/03/10
Posts: 226
Loc: Alabama
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
And yet another person who is too stupid to understand simple concepts. No one said anything about trying to sway the opinions of others. This thread was created in order to challenge theists to prove their beliefs. Since you are not trying to do that then you can find your way out of this thread along with Mr. purple hair.


I'm only saying it's kinda pointless to debate. Anyway.

Right-o! I find my exit now.

Top
#42865 - 09/07/10 12:26 PM Re: Prove it [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Syn_Holliday Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/18/10
Posts: 25
Loc: West Covina, CA
Qualified? Simple observation could determine that. You would be the least qualified since your angry emotions are clouding your rational thinking and self-assessment.

I was on this board years ago, and now that I visit again, it's still the same thing, always the few like you who are incapable of taking any opposing view without getting angry. I've seen your posts in different threads. You are incapable of handling any opposing view without taking it personal, thus you become emotional while rational thinking is thrown out the window.

It's been discussed in threads of the past, how to spot those whose emotions control them. Anger, cursing, personal attacks, etc. Same indicators, nothing new. They are those who are too fragile to face any opposing view and simply debate objectively and without emotion.

And your "fuck off" response is certainly adding value.

Top
#42866 - 09/07/10 01:50 PM Re: Prove it [Re: Syn_Holliday]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
I can assure you that you have never seen me angry. Annoyed, perhaps, but not angry. I rarely get angry in my "real" life and I certainly don't get angry over things online.

I am quite capable of excepting opposing viewpoints, I do it all the time. However, when people display blatant stupidity, as you have continually done, it gets annoying.

I curse all the time, and when someone is stupid I have no problem telling them. None of that means I am angry. And I have certainly added more meaningful, well thought-out and educated posts than you have or ever will.

If you don't like the way I carry myself on this board, that is your problem. I'm not going to change for anyone, least of all you.

Edit: I know you were a member here before and from what I have heard you were a douchebag then too. Somethings never change.


Edited by 6Satan6Archist6 (09/07/10 01:55 PM)
Edit Reason: Marked.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
Page all of 6 12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.099 seconds of which 0.005 seconds were spent on 94 queries. Zlib compression disabled.