Page 1 of 2 12>
Topic Options
#39402 - 06/18/10 11:47 PM A Very Short Writing on Religion
DharcDB Offline
stranger


Registered: 06/14/10
Posts: 13
Loc: Florida

This is my first post on the forums, this is just a very short paper that I wrote a while ago and thought that it would make for a good first post.


Religion; as defined by Webster's New World Dictionary is: "Belief in a superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe." To me, religion is like chains, it limits what you "should" do; these things limited are mostly the things that every human will instinctively do. When you do "sin", then usually you have to go begging back to a priest or a so-called god to forgive you.

Not all religions are the same, but most are utilized for the same purpose: to enslave the minds of followers in an effort to get everyone on the same monotonous, impossible mindset.

To me, disprovers of many religions is time and science. In old Roman and Greek religions there were gods for just about everything people at the time couldn't explain. An example: What is wind? Wind is caused by air moving from areas of higher pressure to lower pressure areas and the heating of the air. Now, how did religions describe it before science gave us that answer? Aeolus, in Greek mythology; Anemoi (Boreas, Notus, Euros, Zephyrus) in Greek mythology; Fūjin, a Shinto god in Japanese mythology; Njord, in Norse mythology; Stribog, in Slavic mythology, (and i could go on) are all different gods made by people in civilizations with the only purpose of explaining wind. Science later came up with the correct answer and it invalidated the need to believe in any wind god.

Now most current religions have one god as a creator and ruler. Along with the god comes a set of values and so-called sins. Most also have a fancy way of saying that if you follow the religion and keep constantly repenting and begging for forgiveness you wont die -by being provided an afterlife, reincarnation, etc.- and if you do not follow the religion, well, there is usually a worse alternative (such as hell in Christian, Jewish, and Islamic beliefs). In the religion, you're trained to strive to go against your instincts and live how your told is right. It's a waste of life on an endless path of blind faith. There is no evidence of gods and time can show how religions die off.

Lying, hatred, lust; how many times have you heard how bad these "sins" are? Plenty I'm sure. Think honestly, it's hard -no wait- most religions even address that it's impossible not to lie, hate, or look at someone with lust. Also, most religions say you must repent from you actions; this is a way they keep your mind guilty and striving to beat your instincts. There is a reason that it is impossible not to "sin"...it's natural human instincts; hard-wired into the way we behave.

Humans have a mind like no other organism, in the sense that they learn from their actions and adapt and improve their own well-being over generations; usually at the expense of the well-being of other animals of our planet. They also can and have learned the way humans think to take advantage and on a level control the actions of other humans; a huge example is what we call religion.

To craft a modern religion, all one needs to know is some things humans do naturally (such as lie) and make them feel guilty (usually enforcing the feeling of guilt with something such as an eternity in hell). They will then be pleading to be forgiven in a vulnerable state where they will do almost anything (this is where you tell them what "they should do" instead) to be forgiven. This means that they will be once again striving to do what they were told is the right thing to do instead of the so-called sin; it creates a huge cycle of "sin" then begging for forgiveness. Since the "sins" are impossible to avoid, repentance is unavoidable in the religion. This thing we call religion is a powerful tool used to explain what isn't currently understood and to give a false hope in an afterlife invented by humans. The tool may be powerful, but only to those who can't take the time to think about things critically and logically, which sadly is a good percentage of the population of man.

Believing in supernatural entities of any sort (such as God or Satan in Christian beliefs) is...illogical and ignorant. No logical evidence has been provided towards proving that there is a god. With these points, I end my writings.
_________________________
“There is a beast in man that needs to be excersised, not exorcised.”

Top
#39492 - 06/22/10 03:18 PM Re: A Very Short Writing on Religion [Re: DharcDB]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1646
Loc: Orlando, FL
Sorta preaching to the choir, but in any case, welcome to the club. There's an "Introduction" subforum in here for an intro proper.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#39548 - 06/24/10 10:54 PM Re: A Very Short Writing on Religion [Re: The Zebu]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
 Quote:
Humans have a mind like no other organism, in the sense that they learn from their actions and adapt and improve their own well-being over generations; usually at the expense of the well-being of other animals of our planet. They also can and have learned the way humans think to take advantage and on a level control the actions of other humans; a huge example is what we call religion.

Man must be an insider, then. I'll go further, and postulate that humans have the inner track... as to what? All I have to say in regards to this ideational fact is that humans are allotted a number of years whether 60, 70, or 80 (pending on conditions), and within that time frame we humans have to come up with our own synthesis of causation. (Wo)Man is rational, and through our rationality we strive to find a way to express ourselves. When that sense of being (causation)is achieved, one can say firmly that life has been lived to its fullest. Now, in terms of an eschatology; religion is abound with references of how to attain one through their annals no matter the institution whether your agreeable or not. They come up short when questioned as to if they have exsculsive rights to an afterlife to which they leave to an other-power (a possible cop-out).

This is just a personal judgement I'm passing: You don't seem like an individual who does not have belief in a superior entity (godhead) who commands everything. It looks like the more you question "God", the more you believe. This is because when an individual becomes engrossed with self-power (only the self exisits-solipsism) and nothing else, there is an obliteration of the self which results in moving to the other-power (godhead-"God"). Your just questioning everything in a pragmatic, empiracal way without stretching your Mind to other possibilities which may be of use to you. On your diaboloical journey, I HOPE you find what you're looking for before your corporeal appendages lose life, and death overcomes you.
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#39574 - 06/26/10 05:54 PM Re: A Very Short Writing on Religion [Re: paolo sette]
NeronCaesar10 Offline
stranger


Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 7
Loc: NC
Religion is useless,its either righteousness,or sin. Clean or unclean,Heaven or Hell. Just have fun before you reach doom.
_________________________
Worship Thyself...Affirm Thyself...If you cannot Affirm Thyself...Change

Top
#39653 - 06/29/10 01:49 AM Re: A Very Short Writing on Religion [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Little Horn Offline
stranger


Registered: 01/21/10
Posts: 11
Loc: Colorado
This is good essay, first of all. It looks to me like you are asking some important questions, but that you've gone a bit hastily with the conclusions.

You're absolutely correct in the statement that no solid evidence of a godhead has ever surfaced, but that does not necessarily mean that there is nothing that we as humans would currently consider "supernatural".

As you pointed out, many things that humans previously believed to be supernatural (fire, wind, rain) turned out not to be caused by supernatural means, but rather to be of a completely scientific nature. How can we not consider the possibility that we are making such assumptions right now? Perhaps some things that we attribute to a godhead may be existent, but not attributable to a godhead. Perhaps not. But either way, the possibility should not be overlooked.

A good example is a "sea monster" that was captured in the 1960's (or perhaps it was the 1940's; I'm very tired right now and I'm too lazy to look it up). A sea monster was reported in a sea gulf, and many nutjobs and cryptozoologists ran out to take pictures of said monster. These people said, "it could be, so it is" and assumed that their crazy sea monster theory was correct (much like the modern religious belief in a godhead), whilst the skeptics simply said, "there is no evidence, so it is not", and ridiculed those who made their crazy assumptions (much like modern day "fundamentalist" atheists).

In actuality, it was not a sea monster, and it was not conspiracy theorists with brain damage, it was a whale, and both sides were forced to admit that they shat out of their mouths because they had judged things too quickly.

It is possible that we as humans know all there is to know, but ridiculously unlikely, so it is my personal belief that we should not accept these ridiculous moral dogmas that are spoon-fed to us, but not reject the idea that there may be something we don't know, either.

It is not a bad thing to not know something as long as you can recognize that you don't know it. When I see something that I can't explain, I don't assume that it's a demon or an angel, but I don't deny that I saw it. I simply say, "I do not know" and continue to learn.

So as to whether or not God exists, I don't know, and no one can really say they do. I have no doubt that should such a thing exist, it would not be the hypocritical fascist asshole of Judeo-christian literature, but rather in another form entirely. Still, one cannot dismiss an idea altogether just because an idiot has turned it into a steaming pile of excrement with the poison of dogma.

"He that is slow to believe anything and everything is of great understanding, for belief in one false principle is the beginning of all unwisdom."

Those are words to live by, and I take those words to mean that while I should not believe in anything for no reason, I should also not believe in nothing for no reason.

While I agree entirely with your assessment of organized religion, your outright condemnation of anything deemed "supernatural" seems a bit hasty to me, and such things should be looked through a pair of scientific glasses instead of denied outright.

This is just my opinion, though, and you're obviously going to draw your own conclusions, so your ideas will likely be different than mine. I just thought I'd throw that out there for consideration.

Top
#39701 - 06/29/10 11:28 PM Re: A Very Short Writing on Religion [Re: Little Horn]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
Gathering from what you said, you're ambivalent on accepting or rejecting the notions of a godhead. I'm not about to embark on mission which entails the convoluted journey in discussing whether or not an Absolute Truth exisits. Or, will I? Case in point, every individual has to rely on their own intellection on desciding for themselves whether it's an idea or fact. Some mental calisthenics I enjoy are from Eastern religions which haven insolvently proven themselves extremely useful. They have provided me with a strong foundation which I use to support very heavy weight that would otherwise crush my sense of self. This is broaching the subject of good and (versus) Evil, and I'm convinced that the duality is a potent force in our phenomenal world. Is every human forgiven for completing Evil actions against others (sense of good), or is compassion reserved for Evil situations taking in all the facts leaving the judgement to an Arbiter (sense of Evil)? I've viewed profound situations, and I'm left with the conclusion of these two diametrically opposing forces working against each other are present. Never have I seen them complement each other...hhmmm. Well, I'm a very old partner with Evil, and have been since I can remember. The Evil prescence of Satan is abound in my Mind pertaining to my conscious. Evil is how I volitionally 'will' my self, and experience reality as we know it bestriding forms and senses. Not the goodness of "God". Hey, I think I came up with a new word (and would like the privaledges with coining it)...satanhead! LOL \:D Meaning: "Satan" or "Evil symbolism or prescence or entity".

Another point I want to mention is that you bring up the theosophical perspective, by that I signify on whether a personal encounter can be achieved with the satanhead. Books have been written on fortean phenomena with no plausible, scientific explanation possible. Likewise, there is ample medical literature out there that states irrational remissions or curings of terminal diseases with no known cause. Also, religion is full of examples of innate, superordinate beings. Michael A. Aquino of The Temple of Set plays on this web site, and Setians firmly put forth on factual encounters(a Setian author and former priest: Don Webb) that Set, i.e. satanhead, always exisited-exisits-will exist that IT is the undifferentiated continuum. I enjoy reading his posts as they help my in deciphering cryptographically what goes on with the Temple.

Ciao!...666
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#39721 - 07/01/10 12:51 AM Re: A Very Short Writing on Religion [Re: DharcDB]
DharcDB Offline
stranger


Registered: 06/14/10
Posts: 13
Loc: Florida
 Originally Posted By: DharcDB

Believing in supernatural entities of any sort (such as God or Satan in Christian beliefs) is...illogical and ignorant.


I have looked this over. I still believe that as of right now, with no proof provided, that believing in such entities can be labeled as illogical at this time. Putting in ignorant, just made me seem ignorant I suppose; as if proof came along and Jebus was standing in front of me doing...er...god stuff....then I would be the illogical and ignorant one not believing. I've realized my mistakes in my writing. As much as this is going to hurt me to say, I was being as intolerant as my parents towards other beliefs by straight-up condemning belief in those supernatural entities; I was wrong.
_________________________
“There is a beast in man that needs to be excersised, not exorcised.”

Top
#39748 - 07/01/10 04:19 PM Re: A Very Short Writing on Religion [Re: DharcDB]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
I would disagree entirely. There is nothing inherently wrong with intolerance; in fact I think some of the time intolerance is the only position to take. To tolerate something means to put up with something that you don't like. Why should anyone put up with something they don't like unless it is absolutely necessary? So much shit comes from the belief in unconditional and compulsive love for everyone and everything.

I too condemn all belief in any supernatural entity and I will NEVER apologize for that. If in the highly unlikely event that I am wrong I will have no qualms about admitting I was wrong but I will certainly not apologize for it. It is not as if I am rejecting these beliefs out of hand - there is literally no convincing evidence that says I should believe it. And when considering all the flack that a heathen like myself catches from believers I have no problem with responding in kind.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#39777 - 07/02/10 01:55 AM Re: A Very Short Writing on Religion [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1737
Loc: New York
Goddamn 6!! Your post about intolerance just gave me a huge bonner!!

Obviously I agree, which is interesting because often times I actually tell people that I am “tolerant,” towards people of faith and other politically correct bullshit. This comes up in conversation when the p.c crowd tells me that even though I have different beliefs and opinions from that of other people, I “should” (I HATE THAT WORD “SHOULD) be RESPECTFUL towards their beliefs. That’s when I go off about how in my view “respect” means a level of adoration, which I definitely don’t have for anyone of “faith,” and that it is likely that instead of the word “respect,” they actually mean that I might consider being tolerant of their views; which is true, I have to tolerate their opinions since most often these conversations take place in a work environment, where we all pretty much either get along, or get going along out the door.

But yeah, now that you mention it, I not only don’t respect their views, I would rather not tolerate it either.
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#40014 - 07/06/10 02:02 AM Re: A Very Short Writing on Religion [Re: Asmedious]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
There is a word, Monergism, which means working alone in terms of singular effort. That's what I'm reading from the posts that were produced, not to mention the others that were thinking along the same lines. Animals are very keen with Monergism because the beasts cannot process levels of cogitation outside of repetative conditioning. For example, when a mother cat carries her kittens, she grasps the neck of each kitten with her mouth and carries it from one place to another. That is Mongerism because the kittens just let their mother carry them. Without the process of understanding there are other ramifications of the act, they only behave accordingly.

Fine. The other-power does things on its own anyway. If your conscious is flexible enough to entertain the notion of an Absolute (satanhead), it can ameliorate things by allowing further connectivity with the wide gamut issues each individual faces. Frankly, it doesn't care about suffering and ignorance because it allows injustices of all sorts and kinds in the phenomenal world to continue without a given explanation. From the face value of existence, life is an abnegation of all things.

But, humans have a Mind which allows for in-depth probing into the deepest recesses of the Void. A cure can emerge from diligent work as well as cessation of undesireable actions inorder to promulgate the self. If one cannot find a treatment to halting ugly situations from occurring, then in can lead to fluctuations regarding mental states. A positive way to view mental illness (i.e. anxiety=suffering) is that it can be a precursor to providing a person with the opportunity to discern a religious Truth. I don't know if you have lived life to taste the very essence from which existence emerges, and I'm not sure if you want to. After a series of calamities, humans are left with coming to a definitive realization about their own nature of being.

The information is out there in forms accessible to each inquiring Mind (I prefer books), if one is not privy to experience a leap which is true for the vast majority of humans. Those that can say they have "walked on the other shore" open up other possibilities that a recluse would have never thought about.

_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#40122 - 07/11/10 12:20 AM Re: A Very Short Writing on Religion [Re: Asmedious]
Draculesti Offline
Impaler
member


Registered: 09/18/07
Posts: 325
Loc: Rockville, Maryland
Tolerance is a four letter word...with nine letters...

I agree, tolerance has little if anything to do with respect. It seems to me, you can tolerate something while having no respect for it, by saying absolutely nothing about it, either positive or negative. Don't offer an opinion, even when asked. The absolute opposite of love (respect) is not hate, but indifference.

That being said, you neither have to tolerate nor respect someone getting in your face about their beliefs, demanding you to give as much weight to theirs as your own. Tolerance is a symptom of the disease of egalitarianism.
_________________________
The Holy Trinity: Me, Myself, and I.

Homo Homini Lupus

Top
#40137 - 07/12/10 12:35 AM Re: A Very Short Writing on Religion [Re: Draculesti]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
You say Tolerance which may parallel equivocally Mongerism with some variations as to definitions especially when applied to one's self. I've been thinking about this thread tangentially over the past week, and have brought other concepts to Mind. One of them is as follows:

I'm guesstimating, but I think that there is a large majority of Setians with a lesser amount of Satanists who would appeal to the action of synergism. What I mean by this word is exemplified by the animal kingdom (I'll give another example pertaining to beasts). When monkeys carry their offspring, they do so on their backs (minus certain varieties). This means that the baby monkeys grasp their mother's body with their limbs or tails, so the mother is not doing all the work by herself. The baby monkeys do their share. This is the way of synergism in contrast to the way of Mongerism.

Both left-handed cohorts of individuals must do so diplomatically or tactfully which requires utilizing a high-level thinking ability. As to the approach, the use of Black Magic is a common theme amongst both of them. Any number of reasons are for engagment in these actions, but the core understanding is still the same: To funnel the satanhead's abilities into one's own, thus, conflating (reducing two into One) to bring about change either of a benefit or hindrance. The individual is seen as possessing the means to altering the environment, and achieves primary importance when this is realized by that person; therefore, the Dark Arts provide an augmentation with focusing on the satanhead synergistically with oneself.

Synergism or Mongerism. It's up to you which path to take. \:\)
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#40247 - 07/14/10 03:06 PM Re: A Very Short Writing on Religion [Re: paolo sette]
Dakota Offline
Banned
pledge


Registered: 12/23/09
Posts: 60
Loc: Michigan
And why did you assume I would want to read this garbage? It may had been an interesting essay to someone who believes in this type of religion.

Let people pray to the God(s), but don't persuade them from changing their views. It's their freedom to believe in their saviors.

Top
#40272 - 07/15/10 01:44 AM Re: A Very Short Writing on Religion [Re: Dakota]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

 Originally Posted By: Dakota
And why did you assume I would want to read this garbage?

My thoughts exactly. This reply of yours directed at the wrong person is garbage. What made you hit reply?

~T~
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#40285 - 07/15/10 11:26 AM Re: A Very Short Writing on Religion [Re: ta2zz]
Dakota Offline
Banned
pledge


Registered: 12/23/09
Posts: 60
Loc: Michigan
 Originally Posted By: ta2zz

 Originally Posted By: Dakota
And why did you assume I would want to read this garbage?

My thoughts exactly. This reply of yours directed at the wrong person is garbage. What made you hit reply?

~T~


I run this forum, and last time I check every reply I make here is a controversial fragment were people respond back too even if it's not even "discussion" worthy.

So, my type of garbage is hot shit for others to talk about.

Can you feel it? That little hot button called "Submit" is calling to me right now, should I press. Yah, I'll press it, uh huh, okay, it's staring at me now. I'mma press that little button, and wahhhh.

That answer the question?

Top
Page 1 of 2 12>


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

Generated in 0.029 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.