Page 12 of 14 « First<1011121314>
Topic Options
#41588 - 08/07/10 10:27 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
dragudown Offline
banned
stranger


Registered: 07/15/10
Posts: 12
No nothing has gone over my head, you are simply talking complete nonsense. I ask you to provide proof and you counter with a bullshit excuse of why you can't.


THIS bullshit umm ya well supported i see. rules suggest we back ourselves up i believe we should as well. knowledge is power if you hang out with the rich it may rub off on you staying up to date and treating others above you with respect is a must. I myself like to understand the motivation around me which involves keeping up with the jonses, taking part in comunication from that part in society that creates choices for everyone to follow such as massness of control in government such as medea tv radio placing the heards in society in place so as to motivate my life in a better way, as to try to create my own choices in my life. its about choice are we as satanists about to allow the powers that be to make our choices for us while closing the doors opened by important people by simply at times using the ban button
Edit: please write your response through a program like Word, and paste it into the reply box when you're done.

Do not assume that a learning disability will give you any more leeway than anyone else. Either post clearly, intelligibly and informatively, or else don't post. And your last one-liner was simply deleted.

How about making an effort?



Edited by MawhrinSkel (08/08/10 02:36 AM)
Edit Reason: Warning

Top
#41590 - 08/07/10 11:27 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: dragudown]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Honestly, if you are 45 like your profile says, your post is a ridiculous example of use of the English language.

With your poor uses of grammar, spelling, and just making no sense, its kinda sad.

How can you not know how to spell herd or media?

There is no "we" in Satanism.

The ban button here is used as needed. It doesn't matter if you think you are important, or think you are a Xitian tool. People get banned for breaking forum and site rules, as well as just being a general dick/idiot.

This was your first post here, I hope your next post shows a vast improvement.

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



Top
#41592 - 08/08/10 12:41 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Oxus]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2524
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Oxus
Dr. Aquino,

I understand why you are here, and what you have said while here.
Some times I ask myself, why you put up with these endless, diatribes?

Myself, and I'm sure many other here, thank you FOR putting up with them.

Agreements, disagreements . . . all good stuff.
Ad hominem, stupidity, ignorance . . . not good stuff.

My sentiments exactly. I don't mind my feet being held to the fire on tough questions; I am interested in contrasting and opposing viewpoints. These often help me to improve or correct my own ideas (even though I am usually omniscient, omnipotent, & infallible).

However I think a few individuals here have simply descended into flaming, and while I have attempted a bit of humor & response to anything interesting under all the dung, it's reached a point where threads are being hijacked, or at least buried.

Therefore I have just set my account to "ignore" the Three Stoo- I mean gentlemen Dan Dread, 6Satan6AChist6, and Caladrius. So henceforth I will not see, nor of course respond to any of their posts. I suspect the rest of 600C will breathe a sigh of relief.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41596 - 08/08/10 02:58 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
 Quote:
I suspect the rest of 600C will breathe a sigh of relief.


Nope, I'm actually still waiting for you to respond to their challenges and questions. You don't. Bobby says "Prove it" and you say, "I did." Then when he presses the issue, you claim that it's over his head. That's not debate and that's not proving anything. That's copping out...and like the emperor walking around with his birthday suit on, you are banking on your little buttkissers to back you up, even though they too can see that you're not wearing a stitch, you would rather have an obvious ego-stroking from your camp followers than admit that you have nothing and no way to back up your claims.

 Quote:
Therefore I have just set my account to "ignore" the Three Stoo- I mean gentlemen Dan Dread, 6Satan6AChist6, and Caladrius.


Yeah, right...just like you were leaving the club and never coming back...

I'll be honest, I don't know Caladrius, and I seem to recall talking shit about him/her for one thing or another, but Dan and 6S6A6 have earned their patch over and over again. You were given an honorary status and that's why you're blue. So if you don't mind, I would appreciate it if you got off your fucking high horse and stopped acting like you are anything at all even approaching special. I think that at some point I called you a spin doctor and I must correct myself because you're not even spinning your shit well enough to cover up the fact that you bring absolutely dick to the table. On some points, you have what appears to be a lucid and sensible post, but upon inspection it turns out to be nothing more substantial than what you flush every morning. Couple that with the fact that instead of making an attempt to PROVE what you say, and actually show up those who disagree with you, you resort to "I did prove it, you're just too ignorant to see it because Set doesn't love you like he loves me" and assorted other similar BS, and it's a wonder to me that you have any credibility here at all.

Do you really think that you can do no wrong here? You are not adding anything of intellectual value. The desperation in your posts is evident: you are desperate to maintain whatever glory you may have culled back in 1975. As has been said before: "ain't happenin". You may have been a bigshot to various hippies-gone-bad, but you're not shit in 2010.

For fuck's sake, man, have some fucking dignity and pride.



Edited by ceruleansteel (08/08/10 02:59 AM)
Edit Reason: I fucked up some grammar on accident instead of on purpose

Top
#41602 - 08/08/10 03:53 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ceruleansteel]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2524
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
Nope, I'm actually still waiting for you to respond to their challenges and questions. You don't. Bobby says "Prove it" and you say, "I did." Then when he presses the issue, you claim that it's over his head. That's not debate and that's not proving anything.

May I suggest that you re-read my responses more carefully. "Proof", as I noted, is a scientific term, and relates to repeatable cause/effect in the OU. It has no significance in the SU. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

 Quote:
Yeah, right...just like you were leaving the club and never coming back...

Well, if the Three ... gentlemen learn some matters and how to engage their brains in advance of their mouths, I might un-"ignore" them too. I have nothing personal against any of them, and in my experience some of the biggest pains in the ass have grown up to become geniuses. But for now I'll forego their PITA stages.

 Quote:
I'll be honest, I don't know Caladrius, and I seem to recall talking shit about him/her for one thing or another, but Dan and 6S6A6 have earned their patch over and over again. You were given an honorary status and that's why you're blue.

I have never paid attention to either my name-color or anyone else's in a dialogue. Mutual respect and good manners are just that. If "blue" is supposed to place Dread and 6S6A6 on a higher level of prestige, then they should be that much more adult and polite to others.

 Quote:
So if you don't mind, I would appreciate it if you got off your fucking high horse and stopped acting like you are anything at all even approaching special. I think that at some point I called you a spin doctor and I must correct myself because you're not even spinning your shit well enough to cover up the fact that you bring absolutely dick to the table. On some points, you have what appears to be a lucid and sensible post, but upon inspection it turns out to be nothing more substantial than what you flush every morning. Couple that with the fact that instead of making an attempt to PROVE what you say, and actually show up those who disagree with you, you resort to "I did prove it, you're just too ignorant to see it because Set doesn't love you like he loves me" and assorted other similar BS, and it's a wonder to me that you have any credibility here at all.

Do you really think that you can do no wrong here? You are not adding anything of intellectual value. The desperation in your posts is evident: you are desperate to maintain whatever glory you may have culled back in 1975. As has been said before: "ain't happenin". You may have been a bigshot to various hippies-gone-bad, but you're not shit in 2010.

For fuck's sake, man, have some fucking dignity and pride.

O.K., consider yourself added to "Ignore" until you too grow up a bit more.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41603 - 08/08/10 04:09 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3813
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Respect...and disrespect..are both earned. When aquino first showed up here, I thought it was pretty cool. here was what I thought was an icon of Satanism, right in our own back yard.

Then he opened his mouth. Then came the patronizing attitude, the smug superiority, the passive aggressive digs about how 'real' Satanists worship Satan and if not, they are just 'atheists playing dressup'. It certainly wasn't 'us' that began with the disrespect.

Then came the constant self promotion, the trolling for converts, the preaching. Then came the presentation of faith based ideas no different than those offered by others promoting their version of the 'correct' imaginary friend.

Then the constant rhetorical evasion when called to task, instead repeating the same claims over and over ad nauseam without even a hint of evidence in support a word of it.

And to top it off, he would have us believe that a magical being came to him in person and instated him as the grand poobah of all that is Satanic.

Respect? Give me a fucking break. This guy is certifiable.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#41610 - 08/08/10 05:33 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3119
 Quote:
May I suggest that you re-read my responses more carefully. "Proof", as I noted, is a scientific term, and relates to repeatable cause/effect in the OU. It has no significance in the SU. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

Easy enough to grasp, and I somewhat understand your point ofview and logic being used. On the other hand I can also understand Dan_dread and 6's point of view.
The problem underlying here would be the drawn border between the SU and the OU. As a human I tend to live in the OU and am used towards the practical applications of different actions and measurments within reality as perceived by sience (and myself).

The point where you draw the card of "subjective universe" is the same as drawing up the "god-card". It cannot be proven and can be played at any time at will. It is also the card which is always played to block any constructive discussion and/or hide fallacies in logic. Having a healthy atheistic attitude and position towards the position of gods (and a very skeptic against metaphysics) I tend to agree with the former 2 persons you choose to ignore.
I think I can somehow justify your belief in Set (and immediatly all other gods) by giving the explanation from the view in the OU. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I think this is what you are aiming different topics ago during other debates); Set is not a real living existing being but him being some sort of mental construct/force rooted within every human alive acting as an instinct alike. And this provides him being a "real breathing creature" by the mere idea he is rooted in human nature.
Correct or not?

I also have to admit being a little bothered by the self-references when trying to justify your claims. Taken in consideration some might have to do with you being too tired to always explain and re-explain your views and that a mere reference would be sufficient.

Maybe you could deal with a little less trouble and inpoliteness if your writings don't have that subtle smell of synthetic superiority which tend to piss people off. Even the use of emoticons can be bothersome when others are trying to be a little serious. I know such things and use them when I'm in the mood of pushing people over the edge to see what their true colors are in both reality and internet.

I am also a bit surprised by Caladrius' opinions who have the same stance of Atheism and unbelief in metaphysics. I tought ONA believed in a similar belief of SU and OU, only being renamed in "causal" and "acausal". As being explained here: clickie
 Originally Posted By: The living beings of the Acausal

According to Traditional Satanism, there are several types of distinct acausal beings who exist in the acausal continuum, known to us - historically and otherwise - from Adepts who, having developed acausal empathy and acausal thinking, have discovered or come to know of, such beings.

Acausal beings are beyond our causal concepts and abstractions. Some dwell (and can only exist in) the acausal spaces, while others can dwell or be manifest in both the acausal and the causal, with there being many different types of acausal entities all of which have their own "nature" or type of being. Essentially, they have no physical form, as we define and understand physical form (for example, a body) although some types of acausal being, who can dwell or manifest or be presenced in our causal spaces, can dwell-within, or presence themselves within or be presenced within, a causal form such as a living body or being (including a human being) and some of the acausal beings who can or who have done this are known as "shapeshifters". We cannot "see"or detect (by our limited physical senses or by using causality-based physical instruments) unpresenced acausal beings who may be transiting through or dwelling-within our causal spaces (our physical world/universe) if such beings have not accessed, or presenced themselves, in some causal, living, form (or even, in most cases, even if they have done this). However, some of us (and some other life) may sometimes "feel" or be aware of some such acausal beings: for example, if we possess a certain type of empathy or have the esoteric knowledge to detect some such transiting or in-dwelling acausal beings.

Since these acausal beings are beyond our causal concepts and abstractions, it is incorrect to judge such beings according to our limited, causal, "morality". They are neither "good" nor "evil". They live according to their own nature, as acausal beings, just as, for example, a wild predatory animal lives according to its wild predatory nature. According to esoteric tradition, there are some acausal beings who are drawn or who have been in the past been drawn toward our causal spaces (our physical universe/world) because they do or have acquired the ability to "feed off" certain types of emotion (or "states of being") which emotion (or "states of being") are but types of energy.

Due to the nature of the acausal spaces (and thus the nature of acausal energy) acausal beings do not "die" as we die and do not "age" as we age. Furthermore, our causal concept of physical travel (or movement) which takes causal time is irrelevant to and does not apply to such beings, due to their very nature as acausal beings. However, most acausal beings are not, by our standards, "all-powerful" and many cannot change or restructure temporal things, just as some cannot transit to ("be presenced in") the causal spaces, or dwell-within causal beings, without some aid or assistance in opening a nexion or nexions (which in many instances is just a direct connexion between the causal and acausal spaces).


According to tradition, some of these known acausal beings have been collectively described by the term The Dark Gods, or The Dark Ones (or The Dark Immortals), and included in this particular type of acausal being is the entity more commonly known to us as Satan, and that entity which we, limited causal, mortal beings, describe as the female counterpart of Satan, who - according to The Dark Tradition inherited by the ONA - has the name Baphomet, and who is the dark, violent, Goddess - the real Mistress of Earth (and of Nature) - to whom human sacrifices were, and are, made and who ritualistically and symbolically washes in a basin full of the blood of Her victims. According to aural legend, She - as one of The Dark Gods - is also a shapeshifter who has intruded (”visited”, been presenced or manifest) on Earth in times past, and who can manifest again if certain rituals are performed and certain sacrifices made. Traditionally, it was to Baphomet that Initiates and Adepts of the Dark Tradition dedicated their chosen, selected, victims when a human culling was undertaken, and such cullings were - and are - regarded as one of the prerequisites for attaining sinister Adeptship.


Importantly, Traditional Satanism does not regard Satan – or any of The Dark Ones, such as Baphomet – as conventional “gods” or “goddesses” are understood, and thus as beings to be worshipped, feared, and obeyed in a conventional religious sense. Instead, they are regarded as sinister friends; as new found companions; and may be likened to long-lost sisters and brothers or other relatives; and - in the case of Satan and Baphomet - as akin to our hitherto unknown mother and father, to be thus admired and respected, but never "worshipped". In addition, and in the case of some of these dark entities, they are, or can be considered as, our lovers. Thus, our relationship to these acausal beings is certainly not one of fear, or of subservience.


In addition, the term The Dark Gods is to be understood as but a useful, somewhat Old Aeon (that based on causal thinking), inherited exoteric term to describe a particular acausal species many of whom are known to and named by The Dark Tradition, which species, when manifest in the causal, are certainly far more powerful than human beings. Thus, the conventional names given to some such acausal beings as are known to us, or which have been known to human beings in ages past, are only exoteric names; only imperfect, causal, terms which are useful symbols.

Thus, a name such as "Satan" does not fully describe the real acausal nature and character of that specific acausal being, which acausal being has an esoteric name - an acausal name deriving from acausal thinking and acausal knowing - which better describes such a being.

I sense some parallels. But then again other writings hint that you don't need that particular belief anyway.


Edited by Dimitri (08/08/10 05:42 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#41611 - 08/08/10 05:46 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
Therefore I have just set my account to "ignore" the Three Stoo- I mean gentlemen Dan Dread, 6Satan6AChist6, and Caladrius.


Yeah, because acting like certain points were never made is just as good as addressing them. Fag.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#41630 - 08/08/10 12:56 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
Dear Fellow Stooges,

I have a funny feeling that Aquino will end up adding most of the active members here onto his ignore list LMAO. Pretty soon it will be just him quoting himself to himself... and his fagboy.

I ask myself: What is the point in even being here, If you are going to put everybody on ignore? It makes no sense to me... but I'm a rational person.
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#41631 - 08/08/10 01:00 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Caladrius]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3813
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
It isn't like he has conversations anyway. Without all those pesky replys to his diatribes it will be easier for him to copy paste all his intellectual masturbation into his next ebook...coming soon!
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#41638 - 08/08/10 02:32 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Dimitri]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2524
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
The problem underlying here would be the drawn border between the SU and the OU. As a human I tend to live in the OU and am used towards the practical applications of different actions and measurments within reality as perceived by sience (and myself).

The "problem" goes deeper than that, because noninitiate (which I am not using in the exclusively Setian sense, but rather in the "awakened" sense as in Ouspensky's writings, Plato's parable of the cave, etc.) habitually consider themselves just their physical bodies: what they see in the mirror, what feeds them sensations of pleasure/pain, what seems at least so far to accompany their sense of existence (not the same thing as self consciousness). This defaults to "we are things of the OU", and most people don't bother, or are afraid to venture beyond that [as in Altered States]:

 Originally Posted By: Edward Jessup, Ph.D., (after several glasses of wine)
I’m a man in search of his true self. How archetypically American can you get?

Everybody’s looking for his true self. We’re all trying to fulfill ourselves, understand ourselves, get in touch with ourselves, get ahold of ourselves, face the reality of ourselves, explore ourselves, expand ourselves.

Ever since we dispensed with God, we’ve got nothing but ourselves to explain this meaningless horror of life. We’re all weekending at est or meditating for forty minutes a day or squatting on floors in a communal OM or locking arms in quasi-Sufi dances or stripping off the deceptions of civilized life and jumping naked into a swimming pool filled with other naked searchers for self.

Well, I think that true self, that original self, that first self, is a real, mensurate, quantifiable thing, tangible and incarnate. And I’m going to find the fucker!


 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
The point where you draw the card of "subjective universe" is the same as drawing up the "god-card".

Except that in the Setian/Satanic case, you're the god: defining, assigning meaning to, and changing reality in accordance with your will [cf. the "Magic" thread].

 Originally Posted By: D
It cannot be proven and can be played at any time at will.
Correct again. It is not part of nor subject to the OU, hence not to the OU's "laboratory standard of proof". The initiate/magician/god establishes and defines its reality. Or at any time may choose to abandon it in favor of an easier, automatic OU existence. Black Magic - particularly GBM - is difficult and demanding.

 Originally Posted By: D
It is also the card which is always played to block any constructive discussion and/or hide fallacies in logic.

That would be a misuse of it, and one doomed to failure, because the authentic consciousness & will of a god is not subject to OU-logic. Thomas Aquinas (the white sheep of my family) proposed four types of "law": Eternal, Natural, Divine, and Human. EL is the mind/will of God, beyond all lesser/component apprehension or comprehension. NL is the consistency of the OU, which humanity can perceive/discover. DL is the revealed will of God apart from/in disregard of the OU, as in the Ten Commandments or Burning Bush. HL is what humans make for themselves (and which, in canon law, is appropriately subordinate to/compliant with NL/DL).

The Black Magician embodies his own EL, and magic is his DL to impact NL & HL.

 Originally Posted By: D
Having a healthy atheistic attitude and position towards the position of gods (and a very skeptic against metaphysics) I tend to agree with the former 2 persons you choose to ignore.

That would place you in the noninitiate/default position as above. In Tom A's schematic, you would determine only HL and just endure NL as an unquestioned, unquestionable reality. In an odd sort of way, NL would thus become your "God".

 Originally Posted By: D
Correct me if I'm wrong ... Set is not a real living existing being but him being some sort of mental construct/force rooted within every human alive acting as an instinct alike. And this provides him being a "real breathing creature" by the mere idea he is rooted in human nature. Correct or not?

Not correct. Set is the prior-existing essence and source of conscious self-awareness and distinction from all else (the OU), Individual sentient beings (us) are particularizations of that neter/Form/Principle to the extent we are awakened/initiated to it.

 Quote:
I also have to admit being a little bothered by the self-references when trying to justify your claims. Taken in consideration some might have to do with you being too tired to always explain and re-explain your views and that a mere reference would be sufficient.

I would say this depends entirely upon the context of a given question/discussion. Sometimes I just discuss, sometimes just mention sources, sometimes cite from them; and if a prior writing of mine speaks to the point at hand, why should I try to rephrase it? And questioners can't have it both ways: If they want my response to something [and ask courteously], they'll get the best I can provide, from whatever mix of the above. But you will notice that some of the same people demanding answers are also demanding that I shut up when I provide answers they don't like or can't understand.

 Quote:
Maybe you could deal with a little less trouble and inpoliteness if your writings don't have that subtle smell of synthetic superiority which tend to piss people off.

There are times in which I am chatting on a casual level, in which, as the old saying goes, "opinions are like assholes; everybody has one". There are other times when I am talking from experience, education, or accumulated wisdom; and listeners should be smart enough to recognize and appreciate this. As I have, throughout my life, when I have been fortunate enough to drink at many such fountains. Only a fool gets his back up in such circumstances.

 Quote:
Even the use of emoticons can be bothersome when others are trying to be a little serious. I know such things and use them when I'm in the mood of pushing people over the edge to see what their true colors are in both reality and internet.

I find them useful as "punctuation", and sometimes to add a bit of atmosphere, humor, or illustration to the otherwise-dry world of textrunningacrossthescreen. "Don't like 'em, don't use 'em."

 Originally Posted By: D
I am also a bit surprised by Caladrius' opinions who have the same stance of atheism and unbelief in metaphysics. I tought ONA believed in a similar belief of SU and OU, only being renamed in "causal" and "acausal" ...

I am simply uninterested in the "ONA". If anyone else wants to be, fine.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41648 - 08/08/10 03:54 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3119
 Quote:
Except that in the Setian/Satanic case, you're the god: defining, assigning meaning to, and changing reality in accordance with your will [cf. the "Magic" thread].

Which I already knew and thought it didn't need mentioning upon writing the response. In one way or another I have to agree with you at first hand, the only thing holding me back and which puts me in the other camp would be the mere idea which was being taught to me: "Tell what you are going to tell, tell what you are telling and tell what you came to tell." Or in other words: the audience are not initiates so it is better to explain basic knowledge during the advanced lectures.

The response you gave me can be interpretated in different ways, it was only trough observance from your previous posts I managed to get a vague idea what was being aimed at, being alien to the definitions of OU and SU and other terms. I openly admit I had a wtf-moment when reading it and, as most, seeing it as New-agey BS before observing a little more (and thinking about it).
Which brings me to the next part:


 Quote:
That would be a misuse of it, and one doomed to failure, because the authentic consciousness & will of a god is not subject to OU-logic. Thomas Aquinas (the white sheep of my family) proposed four types of "law": Eternal, Natural, Divine, and Human. EL is the mind/will of God, beyond all lesser/component apprehension or comprehension. NL is the consistency of the OU, which humanity can perceive/discover. DL is the revealed will of God apart from/in disregard of the OU, as in the Ten Commandments or Burning Bush. HL is what humans make for themselves (and which, in canon law, is appropriately subordinate to/compliant with NL/DL).

The Black Magician embodies his own EL, and magic is his DL to impact NL & HL.

It indeed is a misuse, and as I have seen/ read people tend to fall over it. From your point of view it is almost natural to replace "god" or other name of a divine creature or "construct" (I'm going to let go of the metaphysical part since you are obviously not talking metaphysics in the traditional definition) by your persona. But as said before, this automatic "replacement" is quite confusing and especially to Atheist persons who are used dealing with persons believing in divine creatures existing in the OU. Fuck, even I sometimes had to raise my eyebrows a few times.

 Quote:
That would place you in the noninitiate/default position as above. In Tom A's schematic, you would determine only HL and just endure NL as an unquestioned, unquestionable reality. In an odd sort of way, NL would thus become your "God".

Hold on a minute here, I am an Atheist in the sense of not believing in a real existing devine creature (which can be manifested in a human or animal form within the OU which I can touch/rape/kill/touch) or metaphysics in the OU. In the SU on the other hand I tend to fill in devine creature with natural forces. In other words, if there are things I do not understand I use "unknown force" and even give it a name when needed, like Klara or something (fictive person I once had a sex dream with ). I could also call it Set in regards what your definition of Set is (or Satan for that matter).

 Quote:
Set is the prior-existing essence and source of conscious self-awareness and distinction from all else (the OU), Individual sentient beings (us) are particularizations of that neter/Form/Principle to the extent we are awakened/initiated to it.

True if I consider it as a "thriving force in nature which in nature is alike to instincts yet vastly different by the fact instincts itself are rooted in it"? (Instincts then defined as the automatical responses and actions taken under/in certain conditions and/or natural occuring feelings/actions with a sometimes not that conscious awareness).


 Quote:
I find them useful as "punctuation", and sometimes to add a bit of atmosphere, humor, or illustration to the otherwise-dry world of textrunningacrossthescreen. "Don't like 'em, don't use 'em."

Meh, your choice .

 Quote:
I am simply uninterested in the "ONA". If anyone else wants to be, fine.

The ONA quote and mentioning wasn't really adressed to you. It was something I noticed which shared close resemblance to the things you were saying. I was a bit fishing for reactions from ONA side upon that matter, and not the every day reaction against you wherein your person is being attacked instead of the idea... so far no luck.


Edited by Dimitri (08/08/10 04:11 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#41651 - 08/08/10 05:32 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Dimitri]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
Aquino’s concept/ideation of a “Subjective Universe” is his “Wild Card.” It’s the same wild card or get out of jail card the Christians and Jews used when they invented God as a way to explain the First Cause argument. For example they can just say: “Well God is the First Cause of everything, so that is the end of the dialogue.” Just as Aquino can say: “Well, the Subjective Universe doesn’t need Scientific proof because it is not Objective [re: real]… so there.”

I find it a little pretentious that not only does Aquino invent his own gods, and claim some mandate over Satanism, but he also creates for himself an entire Universe [“SU”]. I find the idea of a “Subjective Universe” to be completely idiotic based on basic definitions of the word “Subjective” –

“” Subjectivity refers to a person's perspective or opinion, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. In philosophy, the term can either be contrasted with or linked with objectivity. “”- Wikipedia Source

“” Subjective: –adjective
“ 1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
“ 2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
“ 3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
“ 4. Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
“ 5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
“ 6. pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.
“ 7. Grammar .
“ a. pertaining to or constituting the subject of a sentence.
“ b. (in English and certain other languages) noting a case specialized for that use, as He in He hit the ball.
“ c. similar to such a case in meaning. Compare nominative.
“ 8. Obsolete . characteristic of a political subject; submissive. “” - Source

Aquino’s “SU” concept is perhaps the most silliest and most bizarre case of circular irrational reasoning [oxymoron?] I have ever come across in Western civilization.

Essentially, the “SU” is his glorified Opinions and Perspectives of things which exist all in his mind. Set and the other “neteru” are made up ideas in his head. Therefore, because it all is just inside his head, it is not Objective and does not need scientific verification or proof… because it’s all in his head. And if you don’t accept what is in his head, then you are not “awake,” and below Setian caliber.

“Set,” and this childish conception of one’s imaginative make believe thoughts as being a whole wonderful universe are Reified ideas which he tried very hard to make others perceive and accept as concrete real entities and things:

Reification: “” Reification (also known as hypostatisation, concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. “” - Source

I means, ideas are cool to have, but they are just ideas. So you have this guy Aquino who has a pocket full of other worldly ideas about Egyptian Neterus inhabiting some mystical universe far below and beyond the reach of objectivity and empirical science, and it all exists in his head and his own writings… which he quotes to back his own ideas up LOL. They are just ideas he has based on his own personal interpretation of reality. And when I say “reality” here, I mean the old boring one we all commonly share… the one with the blue sky, one sun, 7 billion people, etc.

Aquino is just one over achieving geek with an active imagination who has all these reified ideas that make him feel all wise and important. No wonder we lost Vietnam. Can you imagine all the mystical creatures Captain Psy-Ops Aquino reported sighting in the jungles to his superiors? "Those aren't Vietcongs sir... those are evil anti-neteru from the Subjective Universe!" Anyways, I think I found Aquino’s Subjective Universe; which one is Set: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlG-Xocz8KE


Edited by Caladrius (08/08/10 05:54 PM)
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#41664 - 08/09/10 03:29 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Caladrius]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3119
 Quote:
Aquino’s concept/ideation of a “Subjective Universe” is his “Wild Card.” It’s the same wild card or get out of jail card the Christians and Jews used when they invented God as a way to explain the First Cause argument. For example they can just say: “Well God is the First Cause of everything, so that is the end of the dialogue.” Just as Aquino can say: “Well, the Subjective Universe doesn’t need Scientific proof because it is not Objective [re: real]… so there.”

It is indeed a trump-card during discussions, but I see it no different then during a debate/discussion about Islam wherein different point of views are being stated (for example: Islam is a violent religion vs Islam is a loving and caring religion). When all boils down to it, all statements and reasons/references given do not make a difference since it is almost always a point of believing. Aquino has a point in saying it cannot be proven for the reason it is his own liking and feels good about it (in a more or less blunt way). You, me and others are using the same excuse in other discussions. Yes you give arguments, yes you give valid enough reasons and logic to state your positions. But guess what, those things are only to validate your points in the OU and maybe in the SU. Within the SU you can also have this concept of faith to validate your ideas. Why is it needed to validate it? To feel good about it and to have a basic on which you can build ideas. SU, as I see it, is not necessarily set. Otherwise many people here would have stayed Christians instead of moving on to Satanism.

 Quote:
I find it a little pretentious that not only does Aquino invent his own gods, and claim some mandate over Satanism, but he also creates for himself an entire Universe [“SU”]. I find the idea of a “Subjective Universe” to be completely idiotic based on basic definitions of the word “Subjective” –

Hate to mention it, but he never really claimed a mandate over Satanism. On the other hand however he has some rusted ideas on Satanism which indeed seem hard to let go. To each their own I would say.

 Quote:
Essentially, the “SU” is his glorified Opinions and Perspectives of things which exist all in his mind. Set and the other “neteru” are made up ideas in his head. Therefore, because it all is just inside his head, it is not Objective and does not need scientific verification or proof… because it’s all in his head.

That kinda boils down to the definition of SU. It should not be taken as necesarrily his Universe, but more over anyones personal views and beliefs making up someones SU.

 Quote:
No wonder we lost Vietnam. Can you imagine all the mystical creatures Captain Psy-Ops Aquino reported sighting in the jungles to his superiors? "Those aren't Vietcongs sir... those are evil anti-neteru from the Subjective Universe!"

Sounds good for a film .
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#41669 - 08/09/10 08:47 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Caladrius]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



I wouldn’t mind opening a brief dialogue here and playing the Devil’s advocate.

Caladrius, there are some points I would like to get some clarity on with regards to your last post.

· You have provided a definition of subjective from Wikipedia, which states that ‘In philosophy, the term (subjectivity) can either be contrasted with or linked with objectivity.’ Could you please explain how subjectivity is and is not philosophically linked to objectivity as a means of grounding your critique of Dr. Aquino’s position?
· You have provided a further eight point definition. Could you please narrow your definition of subjectivity and articulate it clearly and concisely, and can you again please advise how you have transcended philosophical subjective idealism and determined the realistic ontological nature of the thing-in-itself, without reference to the inductive and paradigmatic ambiguities and problems of science? Basically can you explain how objectivity is in fact philosophically possible?

I am curious; your avatar appears to be the symbol of The Order of the Nine Angles. Are you a member or supporter of this organization?

I recall reading ONA documents, which state that this organization believes in acausal dark Gods? Could you please clarify this, and if this is the case then why are you a member or supporter of this organization, and how you are able to criticise Dr. Aquino’s philosophical or cosmological position in regards to the Neteru, but maintain a belief in dark gods yourself?

If you do not believe in dark gods or acausal beings then are you just being subjectively selective with regard to ONA material and taking what you need, or is it something else?

Just some quick clarifying points:

1. Dr, Aquino did not invent the Neteru, including Set. The Temple of Set was re-established in 1975. The Neteru have been perceived or apprehended by the elect of Set for many years before Dr. Aquino was born.
2. The Neteru, apart from Set, are said to be the Platonic forms of the objective material world. They suffuse and form the Objective Universe. I believe Dr. Aquino has stated this and provided further information elsewhere. I think it may be best if you read his past posts so you can get the finer points of your critique right?
3. Set is distinguished and different from the rest of the Egyptian Neteru in that “he” is the universal or Platonic idea of isolate self consciousness, from which particular isolate self consciousness is derived. “He” is that which doesn’t make sense or doesn't quite fit in a purely mechanical or material objective universe. As such “he” can only be perceived subjectively, consciously. Members of the Priesthood of Set have apprehended Set and have grasped a firm idea of the gift of Set. This distinction is crucial. Please refer to Dr. Aquino’s ebook on the TOS for further understanding of the rather unique experience involved in transcribing the Book of Coming Forth by Night. Remember subjective experience can only be experienced subjectively, though psychology and psychiatry may disagree.
4. Does reification even apply here? Set is not a thing, commodity, or a physical entity or object from what I understand. I don’t think Set occupies time and space in any conventional sense. This part of your critique really needs to be sharpened up and clarified.

Why is the notion of a subjective universe downplayed here or trashed at all. One of the cornerstones of Satanism for me is the central notion of a God like subject or I - theist who generates his or her subjective universe and then imposes it on the objective universe.

Hmmm, anyway get back to me with your responses. And can you please display some better manners because at the moment you come across like an annoying runt, who follows his betters around and tries to get their attention by throwing stones and name calling. Your subjectively based emotions regarding the Dr. are certainly showing.

Thanks

P.S. What the hell are ‘evil anti-Neteru from the Subjective Universe?’ Sheesh.

Top
Page 12 of 14 « First<1011121314>


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

Generated in 0.037 seconds of which 0.005 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.