Page all of 14 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#40769 - 07/24/10 09:52 PM the deception of atheism
Eljon
Unregistered



most Satanists ( except spiritual satanists ) are atheists.
That means, they do not believe in Gods, and satans existence.
Can this worldview withstand scrutiny faced and based on the scientific knowledge, we have today ?
i can say confidently, not.
A close examination of the scientific facts evidence that a
naturalistic worldview is irrational.

I will present below a view arguments, which lead to this conclusion :

The naturalistic worldview does not explain satisfactorly

- the origin of the universe aka

why is there something, rather than nothing ?

the universe had a beginning
everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
since the universe had a beginning, it had a cause.

- the fine-tuning of the universe.

there are up to date over 120 finetune constants known to man.
how can these be explained, unless a ID finely tuned them to life ?
the vastness of the universe is entailed to our existence.
If it would not the that large, we could not exist.
the solar - moon - earth system is finely tuned to life

- life on earth

abiogenesis is not possible - its evidence that a naturalistic explanation can be discarded
the complexity of the cell is evidence of a creator

DNA is not merely a pattern. Its a code, a language, and a information storage mechanism
all information has as origin a mind
therefore, DNA was created by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my argument. All you need is one.

Einstein’s Gulf:

On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional spacetime relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages . Between the two realms we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.


Edited by Eljon (07/24/10 09:54 PM)

Top
#40770 - 07/24/10 09:58 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
Happy Birthday Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1725
Loc: New York
Who or what created your Intellegent designer?
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#40773 - 07/24/10 10:05 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Asmedious]
Eljon
Unregistered



 Originally Posted By: Asmedious
Who or what created your Intellegent designer?


beyond the Big Bang , there was no time. you can create something only IN time.

God would exist timelessly and independently 'prior' to creation; at creation, which he has willed from eternity to appear temporally, time begins, and God subjects himself to time by being related to changing things.


Therefore, God was not created , but always was.
He existed beyond creation in a timeless eternity, without beginning, and without end. Interestingly, this explanation, which is derived by science, finds confirmation in the bible.

http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html

John 1:1-3, 14, 18

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being...And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth...No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

The key element in understanding this, the first phrase of this magnificent verse, is the form of the word "was," which in the Greek language in which John was writing, is the word en (the "e" pronounced as a long "a" as in "I ate the food"). It is a timeless word - that is, it simply points to existence before the present time without reference to a point of origin. One can push back the "beginning" as far as you can imagine, and, according to John, the Word still is. Hence, the Word is eternal, timeless. The Word is not a creation that came into existence at "the beginning," for He antedates that beginning.


Edited by Eljon (07/24/10 10:10 PM)

Top
#40774 - 07/24/10 10:10 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
Happy Birthday Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1725
Loc: New York
So your side can claim “Always was,” which basically means unexplainable, but our side cannot make the same claim regarding that which caused the Big Bang? As far as I’m concerned if you can say “no beginning and no end,” regarding a creator, then so can we regarding the beginning of time and the cause of the Big Bang.
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#40775 - 07/24/10 10:15 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
 Originally Posted By: Eljon


The naturalistic worldview does not explain satisfactorly

- the origin of the universe aka

why is there something, rather than nothing ?

the universe had a beginning
everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
since the universe had a beginning, it had a cause.


One of my favorite arguments. "Nothing could have begun on its own therefore proving the exitance of a celestial being that did." Pefect logic, buddy. The world must have a cause. But apparantly the cause doesn't need a cause.

 Quote:


- the fine-tuning of the universe.

there are up to date over 120 finetune constants known to man.
how can these be explained, unless a ID finely tuned them to life ?
the vastness of the universe is entailed to our existence.
If it would not the that large, we could not exist.
the solar - moon - earth system is finely tuned to life

If you understood how evolution works you'd know that the universe is not "fine tuned" for life but that life changes at random untill it is "fined tuned" to its suroundings. Sure maybe life needs a bit of a lucky start but that's why there's life here and not on pluto. Porbability ensures that under our planet's circumstances life was bound to happen. And that life developed to its surroundings.

 Quote:

- life on earth

abiogenesis is not possible - its evidence that a naturalistic explanation can be discarded
the complexity of the cell is evidence of a creator

And what is it that makes you say it is not possible? You make a claim with no evidence to back it up. Scientits have been able to make new living cells from putting electricity through amino acids for quite a while now.


 Quote:

DNA is not merely a pattern. Its a code, a language, and a information storage mechanism
all information has as origin a mind
therefore, DNA was created by a mind.

Again you make a clain with absolutely no evidence. Why is it not a partern? There's plenty of good material out there that explain in detail exactly how and why dna changes and what makes it end up into "code." There's no mystery to the process.

 Quote:

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my argument. All you need is one.

Most animals communicate with different sounds. Humans communicate with sounds. Horses communicate with ear positions. At what point is it a "language" ? When they start correcting eachother's grammar?

 Quote:

Einstein’s Gulf:

On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional spacetime relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages . Between the two realms we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.

You greatly misunderstand what he was trying to say. He was talking about how our sences and perception and actual existance are two different things. Ie how we think of objects in how we see light reflecting off them as opposed to thier more "real" molecular build as an example.

Top
#40777 - 07/24/10 10:17 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
 Originally Posted By: Eljon

Therefore, God was not created , but always was.

One of my favoite arguments.

The world breaks the rules.
NOTHING can break the rules.
Therefor proving the existance of something that breaks all the rules.

Top
#40778 - 07/24/10 10:20 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Asmedious]
Eljon
Unregistered



 Originally Posted By: Asmedious
So your side can claim “Always was,” which basically means unexplainable, but our side cannot make the same claim regarding that which caused the Big Bang?


I presume you are a Atheist. If so, what would you suggest,caused the universe ?
If you are not a Atheist, applies the same question.



 Originally Posted By: Asmedious

As far as I’m concerned if you can say “no beginning and no end,” regarding a creator, then so can we regarding the beginning of time and the cause of the Big Bang.


sure you can. But the cause of the universe is by definition the creator. This leads to agnostic theism. Therefore, you would need to explain, which God you suggest,was the creator, and why.

Top
#40780 - 07/24/10 10:42 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: TV is God]
Eljon
Unregistered



 Originally Posted By: TV is God

If you understood how evolution works you'd know that the universe is not "fine tuned" for life but that life changes at random untill it is "fined tuned" to its suroundings.


Fine-tuning must exist, our universe to " survived " even the earliest stages of its cosmic evolution, and the appearance of matter.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/big-bang-precisely-planned/

If the universe had expanded just a little slower, the material would have dribbled out like big drops of water, then collapsed back where it came from by the force of gravity.
A little too fast, and you get a meaningless spray of fine dust. A little too slow, and the whole universe collapses back into one big black hole.
The surprising thing is just how narrow the difference is. To strike the perfect balance between too fast and too slow, the force, something that physicists call “the Dark Energy Term” had to be accurate to one part in ten with 120 zeros.
If you wrote this as a decimal, the number would look like this:
0.000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000001

the strength of the strong nuclear force.

If it were about two percent weaker, life-essential heavy elements would be unstable. If it were about two percent stronger, then quarks would not form into protons, so there'd be no ordinary matter at all. Two percent either way, and there would be no life.

The weak nuclear force is what controls the rates at which radioactive elements decay. If this force were slightly stronger, the matter would decay into the heavy elements in a relatively short time. However, if it were significantly weaker, all matter would almost totally exist in the form of the lightest elements, especially hydrogen and helium ---there would be (for example) virtually no oxygen, carbon or nitrogen, which are essential for life.

a pre requisite to create life , is the existence of carbon.

Carbon chemistry

Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.
This epistemic-probability is one part in: 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0.
Epistemic Probability: 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 1

gravitational constant: Determines strength of gravity. If lower than stars would have insufficient pressure to overcome Coulomb barrier to start thermonuclear fusion (i.e. stars would not shine). If higher, stars burn too fast, use up fuel before life has a chance to evolve.

there are many more. But that shows, not only must life be finely tuned to the earth , and the universe, but the universe must be finely tuned, to create matter, carbon, and many other life essential parts.

 Quote:

Sure maybe life needs a bit of a lucky start but that's why there's life here and not on pluto.


because our solar - moon - earth system is also finely tuned to life.

all these elements must be right :

the axial tilt of the Earth
the rotational period of the Earth
the Earth's crust thickness
Earth's gravity and interaction with the moon
CO2 and ozone levels in the atmosphere
oxygen/nitrogen ratio in the atmosphere
the mass and size of the Earth
and about a 70 more special factors

 Quote:

And what is it that makes you say it is not possible? You make a claim with no evidence to back it up. Scientits have been able to make new living cells from putting electricity through amino acids for quite a while now.


really ? a link to back this up ?


 Quote:

Again you make a clain with absolutely no evidence. Why is it not a partern? There's plenty of good material out there that explain in detail exactly how and why dna changes and what makes it end up into "code." There's no mystery to the process.


you need to distinguish between pattern, and design. Pattern can be a tornado, dunes, snow flakes etc. which are chaotic, and do not form a code and information, which can be copied. Music however, for example, can be represented through simbolic notes, which correspond to the physical form, the vibrations in the air. it can be reproduced through coded information, through language. To create information, you need matter, energy , and will. You need to decide to create the information. Someone needs to write the notes, and afterwards, they can be reproduced exactly. DNA is like a letter, its coded information, using four letters. Its a encoding/decoding mechanism, and the DNA code can be copied as many times as whished. It represents a living organism. You , for example.
To create information, you need letters like a alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent. DNA is a language, and has therefore as origin a mind.

 Quote:

Most animals communicate with different sounds. Humans communicate with sounds. Horses communicate with ear positions. At what point is it a "language" ? When they start correcting eachother's grammar?


Yes, animals can communicate as well. But, who or what created the animals ?

 Quote:

You greatly misunderstand what he was trying to say.


that are not MY words, but his. I did not interprete anything. I just copied HIS words. What he was saying , is, that there is a unbridgeable gulf between matter, and information. Matter cannot create information and consciousness by chance.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/information-evidence-for-a-creator

Fundamental Law 1 (FL1)

A purely material entity, such as physicochemical processes, cannot create a nonmaterial entity. (Something material cannot create something nonmaterial.)
Physical entities include mass and energy (matter). Examples of something that is not material (nonmaterial entity) include thought, spirit, and volition (will).

Fundamental Law 2 (FL2)

Information is a nonmaterial fundamental entity and not a property of matter.
The information recorded on a CD is nonmaterial. If you weigh a modern blank CD, fill it with information, and weigh it again, the two weights will be the same. Likewise, erasing the information on the CD has no effect on the weight.
The same information can be transmitted on a CD, a book, a whiteboard, or using smoke signals. This means the information is independent of the material source. A material object is required to store information, but the information is not part of the material object. Much like people in an airplane are being stored and transferred in the plane, they are not part of the physical plane.
The first law of thermodynamics makes it clear that mass and energy (matter) can neither be created nor destroyed. All mass and energy in the universe is being conserved (the total sum is constant). However, someone can write a new complicated formula on a whiteboard and then erase the formula. This is a case of creating and destroying information.

Top
#40781 - 07/24/10 11:00 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
Happy Birthday Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1725
Loc: New York
 Quote:
the cause of the universe is by definition the creator. This leads to agnostic theism. Therefore, you would need to explain, which God you suggest,was the creator, and why.


It was the God "Set." He created the universe with a grand force of spiritual thought matter, because after always being, he was bored. He created a Big Bang from nothing only to find that the whole process was watched as it unfolded by another God Alah. Set's actions made Allah very angry.
Allah being the stronger of the two sent Set into eternal, darkness, from which Set decided to rise out of in 1975 and to reveal himself only to those who were searching for him.

More information can be found on my new E-book called, from nothing to Set, to Allah, a.k.a "And here we are."
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#40782 - 07/24/10 11:03 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Asmedious]
Eljon
Unregistered



 Originally Posted By: Asmedious
 Quote:
the cause of the universe is by definition the creator. This leads to agnostic theism. Therefore, you would need to explain, which God you suggest,was the creator, and why.


It was the God "Set." He created the universe with a grand force of spiritual thought matter, because after always being, he was bored. He created a Big Bang from nothing only to find that the whole process was watched as it unfolded by another God Alah. Set's actions made Allah very angry.
Allah being the stronger of the two sent Set into eternal, darkness, from which Set decided to rise out of in 1975 and to reveal himself only to those who were searching for him.

More information can be found on my new E-book called, from nothing to Set, to Allah, a.k.a "And here we are."



So what evidence do you have this story to be true ?

i mean, why could your story be like this ?

It was the God "the flying spaghettimonster" vulgar called "FSM". He created the universe with a grand force of spiritual thought matter, because after always being, he was bored. He created a Big Bang from nothing only to find that the whole process was watched as it unfolded by another God " the brown meat sauce " vulcar called " BMS". FSM's actions made BMS very angry.
BMS being the stronger of the two sent FSM into eternal, darkness, from which FSM decided to rise out of in 1975 and to reveal himself only to those who were searching for him.


Edited by Eljon (07/24/10 11:06 PM)

Top
#40783 - 07/24/10 11:06 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
 Originally Posted By: Eljon
blah blah christian pseudo-science propeganda blog copy pasta

Yes the universe is very rare to come to existance as it is. A god is an increadibly more unlikely happening. "It explains everything" dosn't count as evidence. Science (or LOGIC) is the practice of making conclusions based on evidence. Not the act of proposing conclusions and finding evidence to support them. Need I also point out finding evidence to "disprove" other theories is not evidence for another theory.

 Quote:

all these elements must be right :

the axial tilt of the Earth
the rotational period of the Earth
the Earth's crust thickness
Earth's gravity and interaction with the moon
CO2 and ozone levels in the atmosphere
oxygen/nitrogen ratio in the atmosphere
the mass and size of the Earth
and about a 70 more special factors

Well that could all be true for all the life we know about. It's probably not impossible for some kind of other life to exist under other circumstances. But we can't speculate on that because we have not encountered life under other circumstances.

 Quote:



really ? a link to back this up ?

Well the first from entirely man made dna that's self replicating was this year
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/

The first artifical cell was in 1957
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Chang
The wiki is a bit skimpy but I don't really have the time to look up a better article at the moment.

I don't want to be late for work so I don't have time to the rest right now.
To Be Continued.

Top
#40784 - 07/24/10 11:26 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
Happy Birthday Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1725
Loc: New York
 Quote:
So what evidence do you have this story to be true ?


Because IT IS WRITTEN!!


In my E-book that is, which was inspired by the cosmic force who’s name must not be spoken.
Therefore it is so.

 Quote:
i mean, why could your story be like this ?
....blah blah blah spaghetti and meatballs...blah blah....


Because it’s not a “story,” it is a cosmic reality.

Once you’ve read my E-book, you will understand fully.
I will send you a link to my E-book as soon as it is available.

By the way my E-book is free.

It’s a really good E-book also.

Thanks.

Oh did I mention that I didn’t write the E-book that I’m referring to, but instead the E-book that I’ve written was telecommunicated to me by the “force which must not be called by name.” (Nor should any kind of physical likeness of this force ever be presented in art or the like.).
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#40785 - 07/24/10 11:30 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: TV is God]
Eljon
Unregistered



 Originally Posted By: TV is God
[quote=Eljon] blah blah christian pseudo-science propeganda blog copy pasta


no, its not. that is secular data, which is commonly accepted by the secular scientific community, even by atheists, like Stenger, and Dawkins. Deny this data, is denying hard scientifi facts. If you want to debate on UNscientific ground, this debate will be senseless. Wheter you accept the data, and form your belief on reality, or you form a confirmation bias on fiction.

 Originally Posted By: TV is God

Yes the universe is very rare to come to existance as it is. A god is an increadibly more unlikely happening.


Why ?


 Originally Posted By: TV is God

"It explains everything" dosn't count as evidence. Science (or LOGIC) is the practice of making conclusions based on evidence.


No. Science provides the scientific data. the conclusion is personal belief. Often distored by presuppositional committance to faith in the naturalistic worldview.

 Originally Posted By: TV is God

Well the first from entirely man made dna that's self replicating was this year
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/

The first artifical cell was in 1957
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Chang
The wiki is a bit skimpy but I don't really have the time to look up a better article at the moment.

I don't want to be late for work so I don't have time to the rest right now.
To Be Continued.


It didn't spontaneously form, it was a manipulated reaction.


Edited by Eljon (07/24/10 11:31 PM)

Top
#40787 - 07/24/10 11:35 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Asmedious]
Eljon
Unregistered



 Originally Posted By: Asmedious
 Quote:
So what evidence do you have this story to be true ?


Because IT IS WRITTEN!!


In my E-book that is, which was inspired by the cosmic force who’s name must not be spoken.
Therefore it is so.

 Quote:
i mean, why could your story be like this ?
....blah blah blah spaghetti and meatballs...blah blah....


Because it’s not a “story,” it is a cosmic reality.

Once you’ve read my E-book, you will understand fully.
I will send you a link to my E-book as soon as it is available.

By the way my E-book is free.

It’s a really good E-book also.

Thanks.

Oh did I mention that I didn’t write the E-book that I’m referring to, but instead the E-book that I’ve written was telecommunicated to me by the “force which must not be called by name.” (Nor should any kind of physical likeness of this force ever be presented in art or the like.).


Well, who does garantee you, this “force which must not be called by name.” is not lying to you ?

Satan was a murderer from the beginning, and does not uphold the truth, 109 because there is no truth in him. Whenever he lies, 110 he speaks according to his own nature, 111 because he is a liar and the father of lies.

Top
#40788 - 07/24/10 11:40 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
Happy Birthday Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1725
Loc: New York
 Quote:
Satan was a murderer from the beginning, and does not uphold the truth, 109 because there is no truth in him. Whenever he lies, 110 he speaks according to his own nature, 111 because he is a liar and the father of lies.


"112..ignore everything from 1-111, it is all falasy. Believe only 112, for it is the only truth."

-Telecommunicated from the force that must not be called by name to Asmedious 24 July 2010-
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#40790 - 07/24/10 11:52 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Asmedious]
Eljon
Unregistered



 Originally Posted By: Asmedious
 Quote:
Satan was a murderer from the beginning, and does not uphold the truth, 109 because there is no truth in him. Whenever he lies, 110 he speaks according to his own nature, 111 because he is a liar and the father of lies.


"112..ignore everything from 1-111, it is all falasy. Believe only 112, for it is the only truth."

-Telecommunicated from the force that must not be called by name to Asmedious 24 July 2010-


and what makes you be so sure, its the only truth ? what are the credentials of the entity, that telecommunicates with you ?

do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)

Eph 6:12 "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

2 Cor 11:14-15 "And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness."

1 John 4:2-3 2 "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world."

Top
#40792 - 07/24/10 11:57 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Asmedious]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
You are barking up the wrong tree, christian guy. Honestly, even if your wacky fairy tale was true, any proud independent person would oppose the childish megalomaniac that is your logically impossible omnimax deity tooth and nail. The idea of flying around the universe in what essentially is a borg cube (new Jerusalem) singing hosannas and worshipping something flat on my face for eternity sounds less than appealing. If your fairytales are true I and many like me would rather fight to the end than submit.

Luckily for us, there isn't any good reason to believe any of it is true. They aren't even sure of ol Jeez even walked the earth at all, much less know who his pop was.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#40794 - 07/25/10 12:14 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Eljon
Unregistered



 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread

Luckily for us, there isn't any good reason to believe any of it is true.


Well, each one drafts its own conclusion based on what science has discovered. I have presented some scientific facts, which make it VERY rational and reasonable to believe, God exists.

from absolutely nothing, nothing derives. much less, our universe.


Edited by Eljon (07/25/10 12:15 AM)

Top
#40795 - 07/25/10 12:20 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

Thomas Paine

“It is far better that we admitted a thousand devils to roam at large than that we permitted one such impostor and monster as Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and the Bible prophets, to come with the pretended word of God and have credit among us”

Thomas Paine


Matthew
16:27-28
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

(Jesus speaking)
John 5:31
If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.
John 8:14
Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid.

Matthew 4:8
Again the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

Psalms 104:5
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.


So you who have twisted words and meaning to suit your ego fulled agenda, seemed to have left out the wrong information that the bible includes and pushes as fact. The world is not flat yet the bible says it is and that it never moves from its foundations. Are you not committing a sin by not acknowledging this and going against its teaching? Are you going to start saying that we kept dinosaurs as pets next like the Flintstones?


In the end no one cares about your "god" or your interpretation of it in regards to your twisted views on science. There is no bearded white man in the sky or some dead guy that was born of a rape committed by an angel.

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



Top
#40796 - 07/25/10 12:21 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


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


Well, each one drafts its own conclusion based on what science has discovered. I have presented some scientific facts, which make it VERY rational and reasonable to believe, God exists.

You did? Where?

Certainly not in THIS thread.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#40797 - 07/25/10 12:30 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Morgan]
Eljon
Unregistered



 Originally Posted By: Morgan
The world is not flat yet the bible says it is and that it never moves from its foundations.


a case of a creator, page 107

Writers of astronomy textbooks just keep recycling the myth, sort of like the flat-Earth myth, which was the idea that Columbus was told the Earth was flat and he thought it was round. That's just wrong too."
"Scholars at the time knew it was a sphere," added Gonzalez. "Even the ancient Greeks knew it was a sphere."
"They'd known it for a thousand years or more," said Richards.
I knew they were right about that. David Lindberg, former professor of the history of science and currently director of the Institute for Research in the Humanities at the University of Wisconsin, said in a recent interview:
One obvious [myth] is that before Columbus, Europeans believed nearly unanimously in a flat Earth-a belief allegedly drawn from certain biblical statements and enforced by the medieval church. This myth seems to have had an eighteenth century origin, elaborated and popularized by Washington Irving, who flagrantly fabricated evidence for it in his four-volume history of Columbus.... The truth is that it's almost impossible to find an educated person after Aristotle who doubts that the Earth is a sphere. In the Middle Ages, you couldn't emerge from any kind of education, cathedral school or university, without being perfectly clear about the Earth's sphericity and even its approximate circumference.

 Originally Posted By: Morgan

In the end no one cares about your "god" or your interpretation of it in regards to your twisted views on science.


I guess you can speak only on your behalf. I am perfectly fine, if you do not care.....


 Originally Posted By: Morgan

There is no bearded white man in the sky or some dead guy that was born of a rape committed by an angel.

Morgan


Neither did i say that.

Top
#40798 - 07/25/10 12:32 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Eljon
Unregistered



 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread


Certainly not in THIS thread.


thats up to you to decide. If you however do not agree with the presented arguments, you might give a reason for that position, and maibe be able to present a better explanation for the scientific facts which i presented. Might wanna try with chance ?

Top
#40799 - 07/25/10 12:33 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
So, if you don't believe in the Christian God, then who is behind your ideas?

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



Top
#40800 - 07/25/10 12:37 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
 Originally Posted By: Eljon
...and maibe be able to...


WOW you're smart! I've never seen the word 'maybe' scientifically spelled like you have it before! Good job at representing.


Edited by Caladrius (07/25/10 12:37 AM)
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#40801 - 07/25/10 12:39 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Caladrius]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
This is just a whole fucking repeat of his bullshit from last year...

http://www.the600club.com/topic32034-1.html

Maybe its time to lock the fucker and give another longer time out???


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



Top
#40802 - 07/25/10 12:39 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


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


Certainly not in THIS thread.


thats up to you to decide. If you however do not agree with the presented arguments, you might give a reason for that position, and maibe be able to present a better explanation for the scientific facts which i presented. Might wanna try with chance ?


What do I have to gain by teaching you how science and logic work? I'd probably have better luck teaching my cat how to tap dance.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#40803 - 07/25/10 12:42 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Morgan]
Eljon
Unregistered



 Originally Posted By: Morgan
So, if you don't believe in the Christian God, then who is behind your ideas?

Allah?


I didn't say i am not behind the christian God. I am a born again, evangelical christian.

Top
#40804 - 07/25/10 12:52 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
"I am a born again, evangelical christian"

So you have an agenda with your twisting of words and science again.

I guess you didn't learn anything from your time here last year.

Why don't you reread the discussion from last year and go away.

http://www.the600club.com/topic32034-1.html

Nothing has changed.

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



Top
#40805 - 07/25/10 01:00 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
You should be an Aborted Evangelical Christian.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#40806 - 07/25/10 01:50 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Eljon was deleted from the board.

He can't respond to anymore questions, taunts, or common sense.
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#40807 - 07/25/10 02:12 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Morgan]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Eljon was deleted from the board.

He can't respond to anymore questions, taunts, or common sense.


Thank you for letting us know, Morgan. He is beyond suffering now. Safe in the arms of Jesus. No flowers, please by request but donations may be made via PayPal to St John the Recalcitrant's Home for the Terminally Deluded.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#40817 - 07/25/10 09:10 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: felixgarnet]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
I have to know. Am I the only one imagining the "ton" lodged between the el and jon? As much as I know it's not there every time I look at his username I think I see it.
Top
#40818 - 07/25/10 09:46 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: TV is God]
Lamar Offline
member


Registered: 02/03/10
Posts: 226
Loc: Alabama
I didn't even notice that haha. Christians dig Elton haha.

It's too bad he was deleted, I enjoyed reading these 3 pages. Oh well, back to watching Zeena and Nikolas argue with Bob Larson on youtube.

Top
#40861 - 07/26/10 06:19 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Anonymous]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
While the OP presumably has been kicked out, I'd like to take the opportunity to write a lengthy post in defense of Atheism, debunking myths and prejudices surrounding the term, my view for the "why Atheism" and the reason why it is in my opinion the most sane decision.

To start.
As mentioned times and times again, Atheism as defined by any dictionarry means the "non-belief in a god(s) or the lack thereof". It's plain simple, it does not include secret satanic organisations, illuminati, molesting babies/children or other prejudices as mentioned by your local guilt-and-fear-driven insecure organisation or person when it comes to beliefs.
The choice of Atheism has been mostly made by the lack of evidence/proof for the existence of a "devine force(s)". Atheism is just as the defintion given. An Atheist is just the same person as the person who believes in fairies, gods etc..
Discussions as I have viewed here concerning "being less Satanic for being a spoken-out Atheist" are but indications of simple ignorance. When it comes down to it, the person(s) making these claims are equal to the person with Atheist views in the OU. Both haven't got anything to proof or disprove each others view. Combatting an Atheist view is as worse as combatting theist views. It only causes to waste productive energy. (Admitted I see no problem in taking on some in-your-face/preaching attitude some organisations, religions or persons tend to have. But at least be wise enough to reside with people who share your views. And if you know certain views differ and are certain none might be "converted" then keep the mouth shut about the subject unless asked).

Admitted there are things to a person who look unexplainable, this does not mean they are also globally unexplainable. That would be a first burden to the believer, it is easily solved by doing objective research (it can be quite a quest, especially if the person is lacking a certain basic knowledge in particular fields). Keeping a REAL open mind is also a neccesity
A next burden would include events or measurements done objectively and who are globally agreed on to not have an explanation for YET. An example would include the very beginning of our universe. While any scientist agrees what happened to cause things as they are, implementing the idea of a creative being(s) is nothing more then replacing the problem. (Such as Asmedios mentioned "Who created the divine creator?/How did it came to be?"). It is the same as "postphoning the pain". You think having the solution to your problem while you are only making it worse/ not solving it.

Another example in an attempt to provide an explanation of devine powers would, as the OP said, the miraculous fine-tuning of constants and forces in the Universe. This fine-tuning is a basic natural effect, every particle/atom/molecule/flow in the universe is thriving to become stable and neutral BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. At the beginning of the universe (as they say) our "normal" laws didn't held any ground. In a millionth of a second these laws were made, the functioning or "how" is unknown. But I can easily understand and think of the possibility there were other natural laws who might have come to be. Each of these with their own unique constants and forms.

The reason why this possibility is hardly mentioned is by the reason we only know 1 of the x-choices (lack of better wording). And that choice would be the one which caused us to came to be in this universe and the one who created this Universe as it is.
It is easy to make the assumption and/or seeing the need of a hand of devine creators here, but it would be more productive to proof there actually is one instead of glazing over it and say "you see, no one knows so there must be..".

A 3rd burden would be static thinking. With this I do not mean circular thinking or holding on to certain beliefs. With static thinking I point at the idea that there is no "flow" or interlinking between events and actions. An example from this topic would be the axial line of the earth. While the books describe it is being tilted under a corner of x-degrees which caused such and such to occurs.. it should also be noted that this corner varies over time. While it might have a tilt of x-degrees now, it might as well have a tilt of 0-degrees, 180, 254, 55,.. within a timespan of a million years or more or less.
There are written facts such as the earths atmosphere contains these gasses: Nitrogen, Carbondioxide, Oxygen, fluoride, carbonoxide, SO2,... with the following percentages: blablabla..
But there should be kept in mind these numbers are not static but flowing. They can differ over time (and sometimes space). There are tons of other examples to illustrate. The main point here would be the idea that nothing really is "set" and unchangeable, there is a certain flow and room to work with and to be taken in consideration. There are constants but that would be a whole different matter and has to do with laws of physic to explain changing events.

Why choosing atheism?
Atheism is not to be considered as "extreme". Even so, I am very easy to be convinced to get to the other side. The only thing I ask would be evidence without trickery for the existence of the claims being made. And I am quite sure anyone here will have that very same attitude, but unless evidence is being provided I see no pain in saying there is no god(s).
I play poker, I say having a royal straight flush in my hands, the only thing you need to win is to show it is impossible I'm having it.

I see it as the most sane decision since I do not need to rely on faith. Faith is a creator of doubt, and doubt can cause troubles. I also see no need in submitting to constructs whose existence are doubtfull.

On the other hand I can create such a construct in my mind. It will make me submit in one way or another to myself. This construct will most likely represent my sub-conscious ideas and thoughts I am afraid to say openly. As far as I think, MAA "Set" is such an example. It is but a construct which suits his purpose but cannot exist in this OU but only in MAA's SU.
I see still see it as self-delusional, yet it can be an effective tool in some cases.


Edited by Dimitri (07/26/10 07:02 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#40867 - 07/26/10 12:03 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
Since the OP is gone, I will take the liberty of continuing your thread hijacking. \:\)

 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel

The OP was a perfect example of "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
[...]
 Originally Posted By: Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth

Wendy: What I go back to is the evolutionists are still lacking the science to back it up. But instead what happens is science that doesn't bolster the case for evolution gets censored out. Such as there is no evidence of evolution from going from one species to another species. If that, if evolution had occurred then surely whether it's going from birds to mammals or, or, even beyond that surely there'd be at least one evidence.


Several points here for the crowd:
1. Evolution (big "E") is a theory - we cannot *prove* what happened millions of years ago because we can't be there millions of years ago. (This also depends somewhat on what one's bedrock(s) are for "proof".) Being a theory, the criteria is not proof, but usefulness - the evolutionary theory is more useful than other theories, and better explains the set of relevant observations than other theories. One can present evidence that supports or contradicts the theory; one can modify the theory and reevaluate. This is the basic scientific method. Arguing that "we don't have proof!" is pointless: we know we don't have proof, that's why it's a theory.

2. Evolution (small "e") is easily shown - MRSA, antibacterial-resistant strains of X, many biological studies of changing habitats, etc.

3. Evolution (big "E") is also easily shown for specific cases (see, eg: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/devitt_01 ), resulting in different species (ie, cannot interbreed). Speciation is the basis for evolution (big "E"). (Ob: I am not a biologist - I hope this is correct \:\) )

 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel

Suffice to say that Wendy Wright is intransigent to the point of ridicule in denying that the evidence is there before her eyes.


People like Wendy, I find, usually fit into one of two categories - they either believe, as in Believe, an alternate theory; or they are ignorant of the scientific method, and also unwilling to have it explained. The two categories amount to the same thing. One cannot argue with belief. Trying to do so is simply a waste of your time and effort, and always will be with that person.

 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel

...but where are my manners? I've completely neglected the universal constants that ensure that our universe, and life, exists! Those are undeniably proof that a divine creator tweaked the settings on his Bake-a-Universe kit, surely?

Nope.
 Originally Posted By: Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

[...]
The theist says that God, when setting up the universe, tuned the fundamental constants of the universe so that each one lay in its Goldilocks zone for the production of life. It is as though God had six knobs that he could twiddle, and he carefully tuned each knob to its Goldilocks value. As ever, the theist's answer is deeply unsatisfying, because it leaves the existence of God unexplained. A God capable of calculating the Goldilocks values for the six numbers would have to be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combination of numbers itself, and that's very improbable indeed - which is indeed the premise of the whole discussion we are having. It follows that the theist's answer has utterly failed to make any headway towards solving the problem at hand. I see no alternative but to dismiss it, while at the same time marvelling at the number of people who can't see the problem and seem genuinely satisfied by the 'Divine Knob-Twiddler' argument.


Now, I'm aware that this is a lot of reading to digest for the discerning xtian, but now and for all time I insist that creationists of all shapes and sizes read this post before shooting off their mouth in my vicinity. Seriously. If they read this and have further proof that the scientific approach is somehow wrong, they can present their superior evidence. Go on.


This is an ego problem - the basic assumption that humans are the pinnacle of achievement, the entire purpose of Nature, is an incorrect foundation to build upon. This line of thinking has the same flaws as Intelligent Design - assuming that current state is a goal requires that previous or sub-states must be purposefully and specifically crafted.

Unless, of course, that is what you believe. Again we have the question, "what is the bedrock of proof?", and again we have the misunderstanding that proof is not the point - usefulness is.

Until one can get past one's ego, one will continue to fall prey to 'Divine Know-Twiddler'-type arguments. For most people, this involves acknowledging that humans are not special, and most people can't get past that bit.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#40871 - 07/26/10 07:33 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Autodidact]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Welcome back to Maw!

And yes I wanted to add some comments even though the guy who started this thread is now gone.

These are my own views and I have no scientific knowledge to substantiate them so take them, critique them, or leave them as you wish.

The universe has always been and always will be. There is no point in time when it started and there is no point in time when it will end – it has always been.

The universe is endless, it is infinite space within which events happen - there is no great wall around the universe, which separates it from something else.

To state that a creator created the universe is to state that the universe has a specific starting point in time which is illogical.

To state that a creator created the universe is to state that the universe in its entirety was created, but the universe has no entirety, it is endless, its size cannot be quantified and hence cannot be created.

Humans have a limited notion of time and space in my opinion – we have an inability to think infinity correctly, and our gods and their actions reflect this.

Top
#40876 - 07/26/10 11:00 PM I was just wondering ... [Re: Anonymous]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Something about conventional evolution theory which bothers me [but not enough to keep me awake at night, like why the Earth's axis is out of whack and how I can nudge it back to where it should be] is: Where are all the "intermediates"?

Assumption: Modern humans evolved from "lower" apes. OK, there are plenty of substantially-lower apes around - gorillas, chimps, orangutans, etc. - which have survived just fine to the present. So where are the ape-races between them and ourselves? If the lower ones didn't die out along the way, that's all the more reason for intermediate ones to still be around too. Evolutionarily there should be a whole "ladder" of primates cluttering up the planet, not just distant-extremes.

The same can be said of other animal species, of course. I can see the fossil remains of this or that "generic" little mammal, but how exactly did it go in a giraffe direction in one way and a skunk direction in some other way? Where are the intermediates, and why? If it's a function of climate, land environment, etc., why wouldn't all the mammal-derivatives there evolved into the same thing? Today's birds supposedly evolved from flying dinosaurs; where are the intermediates, and why should a pterodactyl have decided that being a hummingbird or peacock was a better idea?

Questions like these generally resulted in the prof throwing chalk at me in Biology classes, or just changing the subject.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#40879 - 07/27/10 12:07 AM Re: I was just wondering ... [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Doctor, what is the position of a Setian towards this whole evolution/creation argument?

Have we as human beings appeared because of the actions of the Neteru, or is it something else?

Sorry to divert the thread, I am just curious.

Top
#40882 - 07/27/10 03:06 AM Re: I was just wondering ... [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Quote:
Something about conventional evolution theory which bothers me [but not enough to keep me awake at night, like why the Earth's axis is out of whack and how I can nudge it back to where it should be] is: Where are all the "intermediates"?
Evolution is a continuous process who is barely noticed by any creature during a life time. Most paleontological evidence you are looking for have been crushed, eroded and completely destroyed by plate-tectonics, biological influences such as bioturbation, plants and other organisms who break down every cell and bone towards basic molecules to sustain their lives etc etc...

None the less, a few "lucky" carcasses might have survived and have been fossilized thanks to the environnement their bodies were moved to or died. (A reason why you have certain places where a concentration of fossils are). Then there are the few different factors for a successful fossilisation which need to be present. Wiki to basic knowledge.

The current fossils exposed in museums or in different collections at musea or amateur-paleontologists are but a very very small grip on the population which had existed during a couple of x-million years.
The well-known evolutionary path-way of man has been simplified due to the reason to see the full length of it requires a piece of paper with a length which is about 3 times around the earth. Therefore it is wise enough to extrapolate and pick out the steps who give a rough view wherein a few intermediates are missing.
Another thing to notice would be that not everything has been found or could be found. As stated before, it is a matter of luck.


 Quote:

The same can be said of other animal species, of course. I can see the fossil remains of this or that "generic" little mammal, but how exactly did it go in a giraffe direction in one way and a skunk direction in some other way? Where are the intermediates, and why? If it's a function of climate, land environment, etc., why wouldn't all the mammal-derivatives there evolved into the same thing? Today's birds supposedly evolved from flying dinosaurs; where are the intermediates, and why should a pterodactyl have decided that being a hummingbird or peacock was a better idea?

Oversimplified you may say that from one animal evolved a wide variety of other animals. Truth is, it's wrong and is being said this way to keep it simple. The little mammal you are speaking of is not a symbol for 1 set family. It is an indication for a wide variety of families within the order.(Example: we speak about ammonites being the forefathers of coleoidea, yet it must be taken into account there are a wide variety of ammonite families who lived next to each other at the same time (and sometimes got isolated in space).

As you said, an animal evolves due to natural selection and adaptation towards the environnement it ends up in. The reason why they did not all evolve in the same specie is because we are talking already about a wide variety of families within the order. Each family has its proper specifications (color, extremities, adjustments..) who can be a major influence to let the family survive in time and evolve towards another "new" specie/family if one of these specifications turns out be helpful in survival.

When talking about evolution these things should be burned into the mind. The questions asked are an example of static thinking which I already noted as a burden in my previous post.


Edited by Dimitri (07/27/10 03:11 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#40887 - 07/27/10 10:02 AM Re: I was just wondering ... [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


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

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Today's birds supposedly evolved from flying dinosaurs; where are the intermediates, and why should a pterodactyl have decided that being a hummingbird or peacock was a better idea?

Questions like these generally resulted in the prof throwing chalk at me in Biology classes, or just changing the subject.

This reminds me of a story around 15 years ago three YALE students come into the shop for tattoos. After the first one starts getting tattooed they start thinking about the technology that goes into it. The question asked was, How does the machine know when to turn on? I glanced at my boss who didn’t break step and said oh simple it is tuned to the frequency of my mind and for the next 30 minutes amazed these three YALE students to no end. The miracles of modern technology they cried.

When he finally looked at them and said let me teach you something about the miracles of observation and pointed out the cord leading to the power supply, which in turn led to the foot-switch they just said oh.

The moral of this story is stupid questions get stupid answers or at best they get ignored or shrugged off. Projecting an animal have a decision in its own evolution is like projecting that a simple machine has decisive powers.

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

Top
#40890 - 07/27/10 11:13 AM Re: I was just wondering ... [Re: ta2zz]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: ta2zz

[...]
I glanced at my boss who didn’t break step and said oh simple it is tuned to the frequency of my mind and for the next 30 minutes amazed these three YALE students to no end.
[...]
The moral of this story is stupid questions get stupid answers or at best they get ignored or shrugged off. Projecting an animal have a decision in its own evolution is like projecting that a simple machine has decisive powers.


A perfect analogy, ta2zz.

There are no stupid questions, only stupid people (Only half \:\) ).

The real moral should be "stupid people get stupid answers". The three mentioned in the story took a bit of information and did not verify it, they merely took it as fact and started building on it.

You try to leverage the scientific method without following the rules of the scientific method, you get bad science.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#40893 - 07/27/10 12:28 PM Re: I was just wondering ... [Re: ta2zz]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
The moral of this story is stupid questions get stupid answers or at best they get ignored or shrugged off. Projecting an animal have a decision in its own evolution is like projecting that a simple machine has decisive powers.

Well, my "examples" here were [I thought obviously] humorous & oversimplified, and I do appreciate the thoughtful, extensive responses. Nevertheless I am still bothered by the absence of not just a given single "ladder" of evolution, but for that matter branches of that ladder/those ladders. I would expect to see some proto- or near-people around, as well as perhaps a Flash Gordon's Mongo assortment of lionmen, hawkmen, fishmen (as old Blacky LaGoon), et al. Instead it's just us. Up to the early 20th-century it was in vogue to attribute the various races to evolutionary stages, but that went out with WW2.

One of the keystones of the Temple of Set is the uniqueness and startling difference between human intelligence/consciousness and that of all other planetary life forms. This "Gift of Set", as we refer to it, also does not seem to be a "laddered" phenomenon - though because of its very [non]nature establishing a "breakpoint" would be elusive. One Setian just pulled this out of Nietzsche:

 Originally Posted By: Friedrich Nietzsche, On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense (1873)
Everything which distinguishes man from the animals depends upon his ability to volatilize perceptual metaphors in a schema, and thus to dissolve an image into a concept. For something is possible in the realm of these schemata which could never be achieved with the vivid first impressions: the construction of a pyramidal order according to castes and degrees, the creation of a new world of laws, privileges, subordinations, and clearly marked boundaries - a new world, one which now confronts that other vivid world of first impressions as more solid, more universal, better known, and more human than the immediately perceived world, and thus as the regulative and imperative world.

Now why didn't I have that quote handy when Geraldo asked me for a simple explanation of what we're about?
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#40895 - 07/27/10 01:49 PM Re: I was just wondering ... [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Nevertheless I am still bothered by the absence of not just a given single "ladder" of evolution, but for that matter branches of that ladder/those ladders. I would expect to see some proto- or near-people around, as well as perhaps a Flash Gordon's Mongo assortment of lionmen, hawkmen, fishmen (as old Blacky LaGoon), et al. Instead it's just us.


Just because we haven't found all the branch nodes or ladder rungs doesn't mean they don't exist. Remember, evolution is a theory - it would be nice to have fossils of the whole phase space of human evolution, but it's not necessary to have the complete picture before the theory can be useful. Newton's laws were perfectly useful for quite a while before Einstein and the quantum family of theories came into acceptance.

I saw this episode of Nova recently: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/becoming-human-part-3.html , which puts forward a rather neat explanation to your question of "Why just us?"

Besides, everybody knows the fishmen are extinct because the Conquistadors found them delicious battered and fried, with a little lemon
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#40898 - 07/27/10 03:18 PM Re: I was just wondering ... [Re: Autodidact]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
Just because we haven't found flying pink unicorns doesn't mean they don't exist


Heheh... sorry. No, really; we've found the rungs already; they're just long dead. But just because we don't have neanderthals, Deep Ones, or crab-people walking around today doesn't make complex human consciousness that amazing. I'll get back to that later.

There are some issues I have with Setian metaphysics, especially the explanation regarding the "gift of Set".

Animals have consciousness and intelligence too. It is a physically-derived trait that simply happens to be more developed in humans. It does not require any fabulous philosophical explanation.

 Quote:
One of the keystones of the Temple of Set is the uniqueness and startling difference between human intelligence/consciousness and that of all other planetary life forms. This "Gift of Set", as we refer to it, also does not seem to be a "laddered" phenomenon - though because of its very [non]nature establishing a "breakpoint" would be elusive.


The platypus has a duck-like mouth and a large, flat tail-- but we don't see any close evolutionary cohorts who share these traits, as they are all extinct. It is as anomalous and unique as human consciousness, and, for all naturalistic purposes, helps them survive just as well. Does this mean that some "isolate principle" consciously guided the evolution of the platypus to have these features?

It may seem like a lame example, but think about it in the long run. Birds fly. Fish swim. Humans think. It's not that cosmically amazing.

Consciousness is a wee bit overrated.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#40901 - 07/27/10 05:53 PM Think, or Thwim [Re: The Zebu]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
The platypus has a duck-like mouth and a large, flat tail-- but we don't see any close evolutionary cohorts who share these traits, as they are all extinct. It is as anomalous and unique as human consciousness, and, for all naturalistic purposes, helps them survive just as well. Does this mean that some "isolate principle" consciously guided the evolution of the platypus to have these features?

No, it just means you weren't there when that mallard jumped the lady beaver strolling by. ;\)

 Quote:
It may seem like a lame example, but think about it in the long run. Birds fly. Fish swim. Humans think. It's not that cosmically amazing.

As pointed out, all animals [and perhaps plants] think to some degree. It's the vast distance in humanity that is of interest.

 Quote:
Consciousness is a wee bit overrated.

By whom?

Then again ...
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#40997 - 07/29/10 05:12 AM Re: I was just wondering ... [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

Well, my "examples" here were [I thought obviously] humorous & oversimplified, and I do appreciate the thoughtful, extensive responses. Nevertheless I am still bothered by the absence of not just a given single "ladder" of evolution, but for that matter branches of that ladder/those ladders. I would expect to see some proto- or near-people around, as well as perhaps a Flash Gordon's Mongo assortment of lionmen, hawkmen, fishmen (as old Blacky LaGoon), et al. Instead it's just us.


Because any given species is going to be an immediate competitor with its closest relatives. Recently diverged species, because they are closely related, have similar habitats, similar diets, similar predators, etc. They are competitors for the same resources and territory. Usually what happens is that one species stakes out one domain or "niche," and the other picks another one. Evolution is usually an increase in specialization over time, where more and more new, specialized species develop even more specific means of survival.

Humans, on the other hand, ended up being the ultimate generalists. Whatever genetic trigger made us superior to our cousins was a BIG one, one that made us a very unique species. Our ability to adapt is unsurpassed. We can live on almost any diet, live in almost any region on the planet, adapt our environments drastically to survive changes (light during nighttime, warmth during winter, etc) and develop innovations and symbiotic relationships with other species that were unprecedented.

Our closest hominid cousins just couldn't compete. Homo sapiens were better than them at everything, and instead of them cornering one niche and us cornering another, we spread like wildfire and wiped out everything in our path. We were like a Walmart supercenter swallowing up all the mom and pop shops, one by one. We were bigger, better, and more powerful.

The theory about different races being different levels of evolution is somewhat related to the multiregional hypothesis of hominid evolution. There were primal hominids on every continent and, had we all developed at equal paces, there would be near-humans running around today. But the Homo sapiens from Africa had a gift that gave him a dramatic leg up on other hominids; the gift of idea sex. As is mentioned in the video, it was something Neanderthals (and animals) just didn't have.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41012 - 07/29/10 11:26 AM Re: Think, or Thwim [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
These are the exact same arguments used by the Young Earth Creationists. And just when I thought my opinion of you couldn't get any lower.

If you want to to discredit evolution it is very simple; all you must do is find one fossil that is out of place in the fossil record. Even the tiniest fossil of the smallest, most insignificant creature in the wrong place would do quite nicely. Interesting that no one has found any fossils in the wrong place, they have all been right where they should be.

I'm surprised you didn't try to say that Darwin doubted his theories in his end days and accepted Jeebus on his death bed. You Christians love to use that false argument to try and gain converts.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#41024 - 07/29/10 01:40 PM Touching the Monolith [Re: XiaoGui17]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
Our closest hominid cousins just couldn't compete. Homo sapiens were better than them at everything, and instead of them cornering one niche and us cornering another, we spread like wildfire and wiped out everything in our path. We were like a Walmart supercenter swallowing up all the mom and pop shops, one by one. We were bigger, better, and more powerful.

The theory about different races being different levels of evolution is somewhat related to the multiregional hypothesis of hominid evolution. There were primal hominids on every continent and, had we all developed at equal paces, there would be near-humans running around today. But the Homo sapiens from Africa had a gift that gave him a dramatic leg up on other hominids; the gift of idea sex. As is mentioned in the video, it was something Neanderthals (and animals) just didn't have.

[Extract from]M.A.A., "Black Magic", The Crystal Tablet of Set:

... Consider the vast intellectual gap between mankind and every other species on the planet. One has only to walk into a major library to sense the breadth of this gap. Much is made about the relatively high intelligence of chimpanzees, dolphins, etc.; yet the most intelligent of their number cannot remotely compare with even the most primitive examples of homo sapiens. Moreover, say physiologists, even the most exalted levels of human intelligence and knowledge have been attained with only 10-20% of the reasoning potential of the human cerebrum. How and why did humanity acquire this freakishly high intelligence potential?

While anthropologists can chart the stages of prehistoric human evolution to the limits of available data, they remain unable to explain why the entire phenomenon should have occurred at all. The best they can do, in textbook after textbook, is to say that “man developed high intelligence because he needed it to survive”. According to this theory, proto-men were lacking in speed, strength, fighting teeth & claws, and other physical attributes necessary for survival. Mutants with greater intelligence tended to survive through cunning, sustaining their descendants, while less-intelligent groups died out. This process, repeated over some five million years, resulted in homo sapiens, the prototype of Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, and Modern Man.

The escape clause in this theory is the time factor: Five million years is plenty of time for almost anything to evolve into almost anything else. Besides, the anthropologist will say, the entire primate development process can be traced to origins some fifty millions of years ago. Hence the condition of Modern Man isn’t as startling as it would be had it happened “overnight”.

All well and good, but there are at least two problems with this proposition. One is that proto-man was just one of many animal species fighting for survival over the millennia. If his brain could evolve through processes of natural selection, then why did the brains of other creatures not similarly evolve - at least a little? The fact is that the brains of other creatures have remained practically the same size while man’s has “evolved”. This is inconsistent, and it will be recalled that the hallmark of the objective universe - and deistic proof of God - is its consistency. By the law of averages - which applies to natural selection as much as to anything else - there should have been at least some species other than man evolving in intelligence at least partway to the human level. There is none.

The second problem arises through application of one of the bastion theories of Darwinian natural selection. It is that nature always takes the easiest way out - that selection favors the less-complicated adaptation over a more complex alternative. When a time of famine favors species able to reach higher for herbal food, longer-necked giraffes survive. We do not see short-necked giraffes with wings. A more-or-less easy physical modification must first accidentally occur in a species; thereafter selection takes place against those who do not possess the characteristic. That is the way evolution actually works. (RL #17E)

But there is no explanation for human brain evolution in the laws of natural selection. The biophysical factors of a sophisticated brain are far too intricate. A proto-man trying to adapt to hostile environments through brain modification would have died out long before such external stress as he could bring to bear on his brain would have any effect upon that organ [if indeed they would have any physiological effect at all]. In the case of proto-man, natural selection would occur in favor of almost anything else besides the brain. He would become stronger, hairier, tougher, meaner, and faster. According to natural selection, you and I should be gorillas.

But we are not gorillas. Indeed, as our intelligence has made life progressively easier for us, we have become weaker and more vulnerable physically. We are healthier and more long-lived only because our intelligence has enabled us to produce medicines to stave off diseases, and dietary standards to maximize our health and growth potential. We have controlled environments to fend off the elements, and have developed weapons to fend off other creatures. Take away our abnormal intelligence and mankind would die out or be killed off within a few generations. Because of our brain, then, the natural evolution of the rest of our body [which would normally operate in favor of an unaided tougher, more disease-free physiology] has actually operated in reverse. Once more this is inconsistent.

There is a corollary to the second problem. It is that natural selection, when it does occur, does not overcompensate. If conditions allow all giraffes with four-foot necks to survive, there is no reason for the species to evolve in the direction of forty-foot necks. If the human brain were presumed to be the product of natural selection, why should it possess intelligence greater than that required to raise man to stone-age culture? More than than, why should it possess the capacity to be ten times smarter than it is today?

If human high intelligence is a violation of objective universal law, how did it occur? There are two possible explanations: accident or deliberate cause. If accidental cause is assumed, then the accident would have had to be both a major violation of the law and one which sustained itself over several millennia. And if there were one such accident, the laws of probability would necessitate others in lesser degrees [and greater numbers]. In all of the many manifestations of life and evolution with which we are familiar, we know of no other such accidents. Natural law’s grip on everything else besides ourselves appears total and inescapable. We are left with the second explanation: deliberate cause.

During the Age of Satan (1966-1975 CE) a certain “racial memory” of some prehistoric change to the natural course of human evolution seemed to be asserting itself. The most spectacular and explicit example was the film 2001: A Space Odyssey, Arthur C. Clarke’s variation on the theme of his earlier novel Childhood’s End. (RL #17A) In 2001 proto-man’s intelligence was artificially boosted by a rectangular monolith. In Childhood’s End the same operation was performed by an extraterrestrial creature looking precisely like the traditional Devil. Presumably the spectacle of a tribe of man-apes thronging around Satan would have been a bit too shocking for audiences; hence the use of the more abstract monolith in the film. Intriguingly the monolithic Satan-symbol provoked no adverse criticism from viewers, religious or otherwise. Once the religious myths are removed, the “fall” of man is seen as his rise.

Such a 2001-style tinkering with human intellectual evolution would have had to occur at the genetic level, and presumably [so as to be sustained by normal reproduction] over an extended period of time. So we are looking at a subtle process, not a sudden, dramatic event [as in Adam & Eve’s apple-munching or Prometheus’ fire-giving]. We do not have sufficient knowledge of genetics or of the brain’s physiology to estimate how such tinkering might have taken place. That it did in fact take place is indicated only - but inescapably - by the presence of the fait accompli.

The “ancient astronaut” theories of van Däniken et al. may be dispensed with peremptorily. The human body displays an organic constitution completely compatible with those of other Earthly species, and alien astronauts could not have taught anything to a proto-man whose intelligence had not already developed to a high level. There are a great many genuine curiosities of antiquity which suggest that mankind’s advanced intelligence made its presence known long before the recorded civilizations of Egypt, Sumer, China, etc. But, despite torturous efforts to interpret toys or Meso-American murals as “spaceships”, evidence of alien astronauts on Earth remains conspicuous for its absence. [There is always the possibility that a passing spaceship paused here for a picnic-lunch, and that humanity evolved from garbage left behind.]

Mankind’s inability to detect the author of our “high intelligence experiment” should not be considered as evidence that he does not exist, but simply that he has not been located. Nor, one may add, has mankind been actively looking for him. Instead it has been off first on the wild-goose chase of religious-creationism, then on the wild-goose chase of natural selection (as applied to the brain). Nevertheless he exists; the conclusive evidence exists. To quote Walt Kelly’s Pogo: “Us is it.” ...
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41032 - 07/29/10 03:01 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
There are a great many genuine curiosities of antiquity which suggest that mankind’s advanced intelligence made its presence known long before the recorded civilizations of Egypt, Sumer, China, etc.


Sorry for the sidebar...

Would you mind pointing to a source, book, etc that might detail this information?

Thanks!
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#41034 - 07/29/10 03:12 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
Did you seriously just quote yourself in an attempt to back up your previous statements?

Wow.

How about a showing of the bibliography to where you got your information in the first place? I would respect that a lot more than this.

I know that Satanists are supposed to regard themselves as God, but quoting your own "bible" (-esque articles/books/etc) is a bit much for my tastes.

Top
#41047 - 07/29/10 05:00 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: ceruleansteel]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
In my extensive experience debating and discussing matters of religion over the years I have noticed that ones level of superstitious belief..or rather..how far those beliefs veer from known reality..is directly inverse to their understanding of how science works, and what is scientifically known already. This is a solid example.

 Originally Posted By: MAA
yet the most intelligent of their number cannot remotely compare with even the most primitive examples of homo sapiens.

If that is the crux of your argument, it falls completely flat. The gap in intelligence between the great apes is certainly not as wide as you make it out to be. The average human IQ is about 100. There have been mountain gorillas that have been tested through specially engineered tests with results in the high 80s or even better. Here is one such example.

http://www.iqtestnow.com/mag/koko.html

Here is another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_%28gorilla%29

Or how about dolphins? According to the Encyclopedia of Marine Animals, dolphins have 0,87 · 10^14 synapses in their cortex while humans have 1,3 · 10^14, which is about 67% of human synapses. That's hardly an in-traversable gap that requires magical intervention to explain.


Another example of a critical misunderstanding of science, this time how evolution works, is the matter of 'transitory forms'. Where are they? Why..they are everywhere. Everything is a transitory form. Some things survive, others go extinct, but regardless genetics always have anomalies when they are passed down. There is no such thing as a perfect genetic copy. Sometimes these genetic anomalies result in mutations. Sometimes these mutations are beneficial to survival, other times they are a hindrance, but mostly they are neither.If a mutation is beneficial, ie it helps the organism survive, the odds are slightly increased that it will live long enough to breed. The same goes for the harmful mutations, only in reverse. Filter this through vast amounts of time and the beneficial mutations will tend to outlast the harmful ones, and we see organisms that are well suited to their environmental niche. The ones that weren't didn't make it.

'Where are the transitory forms?' is a question asked exclusively by those that do not understand evolutionary mechanics.

 Quote:

If the human brain were presumed to be the product of natural selection, why should it possess intelligence greater than that required to raise man to stone-age culture? More than than, why should it possess the capacity to be ten times smarter than it is today?

Survivability. Before all the safety nets of society allowed for stupidity to flourish, being able to out-think our prey was critical;we certainly don't have the physical tools to hunt. The lessers got eaten by predators or starved, the smarter ones were able to breed. Again, filter this through a lot of time, and you have smart apes..ie..us.

As for having the capacity to be ten times smarter, I call BS. The old canard that we 'only use ten percent of our brain' has been long debunked. Humans use 100% of their brain.
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

 Quote:

If his brain could evolve through processes of natural selection, then why did the brains of other creatures not similarly evolve - at least a little? The fact is that the brains of other creatures have remained practically the same size while man’s has “evolved”.

More critical misunderstandings of what evolution is, how it works, and what one should expect to see based on said theory.

Again, it's a matter of survivability. Evolution doesn't have an agenda. Take the shark for instance; mutations that might cause a shark to gain a slight edge in intelligence wouldn't cause it to outbreed its competitors, as it is already physically suited for it's niche. The sharks brain is not key to passing down it's genetic material, as it was with primitive humans, so there is no reason for sharks with mutations of this sort to out-breed those without them.

We should only expect to see something get 'smarter' if the smarter ones are outperforming the less intelligent ones in a way that helps them survive. Dolphins development of communication, and great apes use of tools are good examples of how for them, smarter is better. And for the record, modern day dolphins have larger brains than their pre-historic counterparts.

And I swear I saw the old creationist argument..well if man came from monkeys why are there still monkeys? Seriously, this one is a classic. Again, we are all apes. we share a proto-ancestor and split from there into different niches. people are not 'more evolved' than gorillas or chimps, just differently evolved.

I completely understand now why you are so superstitious. This thread has been an eye opener, but at the same time totally unsurprising. \:\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#41057 - 07/29/10 09:47 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Fnord]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
There are a great many genuine curiosities of antiquity which suggest that mankind’s advanced intelligence made its presence known long before the recorded civilizations of Egypt, Sumer, China, etc.

Would you mind pointing to a source, book, etc that might detail this information?

Download my Temple of Set, and see Category #5 of the Temple's Reading List at Appendix #14.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41058 - 07/29/10 09:52 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: ceruleansteel]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
Did you seriously just quote yourself in an attempt to back up your previous statements?

Why not, if a previous writing contains more detailed/pertinent information?

 Quote:
How about a showing of the bibliography to where you got your information in the first place? I would respect that a lot more than this.

When you learn to ask politely and respectfully, sure.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41059 - 07/29/10 10:42 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
The gap in intelligence between the great apes is certainly not as wide as you make it out to be.

Having read several of your own posts here, I think you may have a point.

 Quote:
... dolphins have 0,87 · 10^14 synapses in their cortex while humans have 1,3 · 10^14, which is about 67% of human synapses. That's hardly an in-traversable gap that requires magical intervention to explain.

That's a meaningless statistic if it doesn't translate into identifiable human levels of intelligence & consciousness. And even granting it, 67% is still a vast difference.

It does bring to mind my disappointment in Arthur Clarke's 2010, in which I expected his extrapolation of a "next level of human evolution", e.g. the "star child" into which Dave Bowen morphed at the conclusion of 2001. Instead all we got was USA/USSR space sex followed by the creation of a second Sun for our solar system [talk about a setback for global warming].

At the beginning of 2010 Dr. Heywood Floyd and his wife were shown experimenting with dolphins. I said to Arthur that he had missed a great opportunity here: He should have had his Monolith, pissed off at the way humanity had misused its "touch", come back to Earth and "touch" the dolphins, suddenly raising their species to equal [or perhaps more] levels of intelligence. Then the end of 2010 would see two master-species on the planet - one commanding the land, the other the seas. He liked the idea, but unfortunately croaked in 2008, so we'll never know if he would have written 2020 accordingly.

 Quote:
'Where are the transitory forms?' is a question asked exclusively by those that do not understand evolutionary mechanics.

I understand them quite well, but they do not vaporize the remains of progressive stages as they go. I also understand that this is a very annoying question for you, but trying to throw turds at it is still not a substitute for answering it.

 Quote:
As for having the capacity to be ten times smarter, I call BS. The old canard that we 'only use ten percent of our brain' has been long debunked. Humans use 100% of their brain.

Once again you have my deepest sympathy for bumping up against your 100%.

 Quote:
We should only expect to see something get 'smarter' if the smarter ones are outperforming the less intelligent ones in a way that helps them survive. Dolphins development of communication, and great apes use of tools are good examples of how for them, smarter is better. And for the record, modern day dolphins have larger brains than their pre-historic counterparts.

I will be more impressed when the dolphins develop a community strategy to evade tuna nets, and when sharks without topfins evolve fast enough to survive their ongoing massacre for soup. As for apes using tools, well, you do seem to have managed a keyboard.

 Quote:
And I swear I saw the old creationist argument..well if man came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

No, you didn't.

 Quote:
I completely understand now why you are so superstitious. This thread has been an eye opener, but at the same time totally unsurprising.

Good; have a banana with my compliments.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41062 - 07/29/10 11:34 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Of course, when your superstitions are challenged and you are presented with science, you are reduced to insults and non sequiters. Par for the course.

 Quote:
Having read several of your own posts here, I think you may have a point.

An insult in lieu of an argument does not a case make.I realize the fact that the human IQ level isn't all that far off from other great apes is highly problematic to your superstitious worldview, but ignoring it won't make it go away.

 Quote:

That's a meaningless statistic if it doesn't translate into identifiable human levels of intelligence & consciousness. And even granting it, 67% is still a vast difference.

Not a big enough difference to warrant 'divine intervention' as you would have us believe. How exactly are we more conscious than other animals anyway? That's silly.

 Quote:

I understand them quite well, but they do not vaporize the remains of progressive stages as they go. I also understand that this is a very annoying question for you, but trying to throw turds at it is still not a substitute for answering it.

This isn't really a valid objection either. It takes very specialized conditions for remains to fossilize. There is no reason we should expect to see a fossilized record of everything that has ever lived on earth. More misunderstandings of science on your part old bean.

 Quote:

Once again you have my deepest sympathy for bumping up against your 100%.

Another insult in lieu of an argument. Have I hit a soft spot Mike? You made the claim that we have the potential to be ten times smarter than we are. The ten percent of your brain myth is long debunked. As humans use their entire brain, how exactly are we able to be ten times smarter? What 1970s new age handbook are you getting your information from?


 Quote:

As for apes using tools, well, you do seem to have managed a keyboard.

Again you ignored the point and instead chose the low road. Typical creationist argument tactics 101. Your objection about the relative brain sizes of other animals was decimated, and that's the meat and potatoes.

 Quote:

No, you didn't.

Oh?
 Originally Posted By: MAA

Assumption: Modern humans evolved from "lower" apes. OK, there are plenty of substantially-lower apes around - gorillas, chimps, orangutans, etc. - which have survived just fine to the present. So where are the ape-races between them and ourselves? If the lower ones didn't die out along the way, that's all the more reason for intermediate ones to still be around too. Evolutionarily there should be a whole "ladder" of primates cluttering up the planet, not just distant-extremes.


Sure looks like the same argument to me. As for why every type of ape that has ever lived is not still around (as if THAT is a coherent objection) again demonstrates a critical misunderstanding of how natural selection works. If two things are specialized for the same niche, and the resources of that niche are finite, you will see one of those two things die out. there are only so many possible niches,
so of course many species are going to end up extinct. This is high school level science here.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#41064 - 07/30/10 01:09 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
I'm really starting to think that YOU think that just because you are Michael A. Aquino that you are special...and I understand that it's probably in poor taste that I talk shit to you in public, but damn. You're just some guy to me, no more special than any other name on this board (but definitely less special than some).

I don't give a crap how many names you can drop or how many articles you wrote for your own organization, you still have to back up your claims with facts and references. And apparently you missed the memo from debate class (or the chiseled freakin' tablet...whatever), but quoting yourself does not count as proving your point. All that proves is that you said it before.

I'm starting to wonder if ANYTHING you say does not originate from your very own ass.

 Quote:
When you learn to ask politely and respectfully, sure


Aside from the fact that I read a reply like this and only think "cop out", what the fuck makes you think that I owe you any respect? Who the hell are you to me? NO ONE. One thing I can tell you is that talking to me like I am a child wont gain you any respect in the future. You have nothing to back up your claims, fine. Be man enough to admit it. Don't try to turn the shit around on me.

You're just a freakin' spin doctor, talking out of your ass. Between that and all your retarded-assed emoticons it's a wonder anyone takes you seriously at all. You must be one hell of a marketing genius. You do, however, have more than enough ego to go around. I can't think offhand of anything I've read from you that wasn't either some poorly-disguised commercial for the ToS or just you rambling on about something you wrote ten thousand years ago.


Edited by ceruleansteel (07/30/10 01:12 AM)
Edit Reason: wasn't as finished as I thought I was when I hit "submit"

Top
#41067 - 07/30/10 01:34 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Of course, when your superstitions are challenged and you are presented with science, you are reduced to insults and non sequiters. Par for the course ...

Actually I was enjoying a light-hearted leg-pull, but it seems my wit was wasted, shucks. [That's "non sequitur", incidentally, but you still need to work on the concept a bit.]

 Originally Posted By: D.D.
 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
Having read several of your own posts here, I think you may have a point.

An insult in lieu of an argument does not a case make.

An insult? I was just agreeing with you.

 Originally Posted By: D.D.
 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
Once again you have my deepest sympathy for bumping up against your 100%.

Another insult in lieu of an argument.

No insult; once again I was just agreeing with you about your 100%. Anton used to talk in terms of lightbulbs: There are 40-watt, 60-watt, 100-watt, and occasionally 3-way people as well. Each has its proper socket & current, and deserves respect correspondingly.

 Originally Posted By: D.D.
 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
As for apes using tools, well, you do seem to have managed a keyboard.

Again you ignored the point and instead chose the low road.

Well O.K., you do need a little more practice with "non sequitur".

 Originally Posted By: D.D.
Sure looks like the same argument to me.

By 40-watt light I suppose that's quite possible. Don't worry about it; be happy.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41069 - 07/30/10 01:51 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: ceruleansteel]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
I'm really starting to think that YOU think that just because you are Michael A. Aquino that you are special ...

Not really; Mom nicknamed me "Archy" after the cockroach in Don Marquis' archy and mehitabel, and that's been a sort of tough climb over the years, you know.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41070 - 07/30/10 01:54 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Oh give me a break. I'm sorry you are incapable of defending your positions and instead have to resort to hollow rhetorical bullshit. Do you really think people should just take your word for things because you are some sort of has been minor celebrity?

I for one see you for what you are - No different than any other preacher or man of god out there. There is nothing special about you, and I would match my 'wattage' against yours any day of the week.

Now why don't you go read a science textbook and learn something?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#41124 - 07/30/10 11:41 PM I was just wondering what this thread was about... [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


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

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
I would expect to see some proto- or near-people around, as well as perhaps a Flash Gordon's Mongo assortment of lionmen, hawkmen, fishmen (as old Blacky LaGoon), et al. Instead it's just us.

Since I notice you say Anton used to say quite a bit let me point out to you that evolution is around you. We are here the Satanist is the evolution of humanity isn’t that what Anton used to say? I’m damn sure I saw that in that little black book of his.

The lesser beings surround us.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Up to the early 20th-century it was in vogue to attribute the various races to evolutionary stages, but that went out with WW2.

Sadly as this might have held some truths.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
One of the keystones of the Temple of Set is the uniqueness and startling difference between human intelligence/consciousness and that of all other planetary life forms.

I must point out being a child of the 60’s that I too remember how big of a deal king tuts exhibit coming to America was in the 70’s. I also find it interesting that your temple found set right around this same time.

Now I’m not here to just insult you or to try to change your ways, I’m also not here just to play pile on tag team bullshit that happens so often.

You do know things happened in science and the world in general that changed the world knowledge of humanity since you spoke last with Anton or started writing your book? We do use all of our brains, a use for the appendix has been found, 2061 was written in 1987 and was followed by 3001 written in 1997.

Clarke apparently didn’t think your input on his book (if this happened anywhere but your own head) of enough importance to mention your ideas in either writing…

In the electric universe theory the earth could have changed quite a bit in humanity’s lifetime. But alas so many theories so many thoughts so little time in this lifetime.

Easier to explain it all away with fantasy it is also much less scary. Gods can be persuaded while cosmic energy is nothing but raw unbridled power.

Why did I post oh yes childish this little back n forth. Dan trying to tell the pope he is really a Jew and you simply telling him he’s ignorant in so many witty ways.

Lionmen, hawkmen, fishmen oh my! I think you watch too much TV.

Oh well Carry on

~T~

PS I refrained from littering my post with little smileys...
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#41128 - 07/31/10 12:09 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
I'm no scientist... but I have google:

[Quote Answers.com]

Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/missing-link

Missing Link:

A supposed animal midway in evolution between apes and humans. The term is based on a misunderstanding about the theory of evolution, which does not state that humans are descended from apes, but rather maintains that both humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. Modern evolutionary scientists do not search for a “missing link.”


[End Quote]


In regards to somebody stating they were confused because they could not find or read about the discovery of a "missing link" - perhaps none exist in Real Life in the first place to be discovered?
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#41130 - 07/31/10 01:38 AM Re: I was just wondering what this thread was about... [Re: ta2zz]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
Since I notice you say Anton used to say quite a bit let me point out to you that evolution is around you. We are here the Satanist is the evolution of humanity isn’t that what Anton used to say? I’m damn sure I saw that in that little black book of his.

Then quote it.

Anton was not, at least in our discussions, particularly interested in genetic evolution. He was interested in social evolution, just as any other social critic/visionary is.

 Quote:
The lesser beings surround us.

Well then, tell us something of your personal accomplishments, power & authority, recognitions, and prestige, so that we may all see how "greater" you are.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
Up to the early 20th-century it was in vogue to attribute the various races to evolutionary stages, but that went out with WW2.

Sadly as this might have held some truths.

In my experience the only truth it held was that, in lieu of individual capacity & accomplishment, some people find it easier and more comforting to fall back on physical appearance generalities. I prefer to appreciate each human personally, for better or worse; this too has been a hallmark of the original Church and the subsequent Temple.

 Quote:
I must point out being a child of the 60’s that I too remember how big of a deal king tuts exhibit coming to America was in the 70’s. I also find it interesting that your temple found set right around this same time.

The Temple of Set was founded in June 1975; the Tutankhamen Exhibit came to the USA in November 1976. Indeed we did enjoy it, as various Pylons (our local groups) scheduled excursions to the several museums around the country. For those which were too far away, the Temple purchased and circulated the extensive color-slide tour with audio narration by the Metropolitan Museum's Thomas Hoving.

Since then the Temple has visited many museums in the many countries in which we have held our regional and international conclaves, and of course several Setians have toured Egypt itself. America has a very limited tactile acquaintance with the flow of civilization, as I realized when standing next to a Roman wall in London.

 Quote:
Now I’m not here to just insult you or to try to change your ways, I’m also not here just to play pile on tag team bullshit that happens so often.

Gee whiz, that's a relief. For awhile you had me almost as scared as D-D-D-Dread.

 Quote:
You do know things happened in science and the world in general that changed the world knowledge of humanity since you spoke last with Anton or started writing your book? We do use all of our brains, a use for the appendix has been found, 2061 was written in 1987 and was followed by 3001 written in 1997.

Yes, I gather you are indeed using all of your brain.

2061 & 3001 struck me as rather strained potboilers still capitalizing on 2001. In the former we got another Heywood Floyd, and in the latter Frank Poole returns. The monoliths become a marching army of deadly dominos, created by beings reminiscent of HPL's Ibians. Anywhere in this does a further stage of human evolution appear? No, all humanity - barely - gets is a last-minute second chance to not screw up its first monolith-boost. I like my dolphin idea better; but it was Arthur's turf after all. I would add only that I think 2001 owed more than a little of its vision to Stanley Kubrick, because the distance between that and Arthur's original The Sentinel is quite noticeable. SK was a phenomenal intellect in a great many extensions.

 Quote:
Clarke apparently didn’t think your input on his book (if this happened anywhere but your own head) of enough importance to mention your ideas in either writing…

Nor is there any reason he should have, any more than Isaac Asimov should have mentioned me after our exchange concerning Foundation's Edge. If Arthur had gone the dolphin route, sure.

 Quote:
Lionmen, hawkmen, fishmen oh my! I think you watch too much TV.

No, those were from the old Flash Gordon serials; here's a map. As a child I was a devotee of the great newspaper-comics adventurers, especially Flash and Prince Valiant. Artist Mac Raboy's beautiful spaceships and Hal Foster's astounding realism have never been reapproached since.

 Quote:
PS I refrained from littering my post with little smileys...

_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41132 - 07/31/10 01:54 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Caladrius]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Caladrius
In regards to somebody stating they were confused because they could not find or read about the discovery of a "missing link" - perhaps none exist in Real Life in the first place to be discovered?

Yes and no. As per your cited reference, there is no direct path from one present-day primate species to another, of course. That would be like saying that today's tigers descended [ascended?] from today's housecats.

What's missing is not "a link" but "linkage", e.g. a plausible "natural evolutionary path of least resistance" to the present human brain/consciousness phenomenon, both in itself and in substantial contrast to every other animal life-form on Arda, all of which [on land] were over the millennia exposed to the same environmental forces as our exponential ancestors. I have already referenced several interesting literary explorations into this mystery previously in 600C posts; just search around in them - and of course do your own research as well. This is not a dogma-oneupsmanship contest; at least it shouldn't be. It's an adventure after the truth. Enjoy it!
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41135 - 07/31/10 05:18 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
It occurs to me that Dr. Aquino's argument is actually quite similar to the concept of irreducible complexity. Many creationists employ this term in relation to all life. That is, they claim that everything from the very first cells in the primordial soup, to flagella, blood clotting, and immunity, are all too complex of a system to have evolved by the mechanisms laid out by Darwin.

But instead of applying this to life as a whole, Dr. Aquino specifically refers to human intelligence as a single and unique example that is an exception to the otherwise consistent rules of evolution.

There are several grades of an "interventionist" approach to the origin of species and humanity's place in it. Creationism asserts that a "Creator" came in and built us all from scratch in our current form. (An alternate, naturalistic version of this hypothesis is that we were planted here by extraterrestrials; this idea is called panspermia.) Intelligent Design accepts that evolution occurred, but guided by a volitional force instead of by purely arbitrary impersonal laws. (Some creationists do use "intelligent design" as a euphemism, but ID in distinction from creationism is understood to include theistic evolution.)

Neither of these seems to be, if I understand correctly, what Dr. Aquino is advocating. Rather, he seems to be espousing a third doctrine, which I will call, for lack of a better word, the Prometheus Theory. This is the idea that some external force intervened not on life as a whole, but in humanity specifically.

One may well be skeptical of this claim or not be convinced by his argument, but it's good to at least understand what he is advocating before trying to refute it. It is not an attempt to "discredit evolution," a request for "transitory forms," a rhetorical "why are there still monkeys?" tactic, etc.

It was my understanding (and I was hoping to clarify that with my previous post, btw) that Dr. Aquino's request for modern day near-humans was not an attempt to undercut man's transition from primate to Homo sapiens, but rather an attempt to highlight that man is a unique species and to imply that there is a special cause for that. I didn't think he was making a "we didn't evolve" argument, but rather suggesting that some intelligent designer or other factor catalyzed our evolution.

He and I both agree that humanity is indeed unique in its cognitive capacity. I find the Prometheus metanarrative fascinating and I love the idea as a notion, but so far I'm not convinced. If established mechanisms of evolution alone are sufficient to explain man's current intelligence, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Under such circumstances, accepting that intervention occurred would be wishful thinking at best. Thus the only thing that would persuade me to accept this concept is conclusive evidence that established mechanisms of evolution alone are insufficient to explain our current state. Dr. Aquino is free to try to establish that this is the case.

Even if he could establish that some new factor was necessary, it would be far from establishing that this force was volitional. As he himself noted, "We do not have sufficient knowledge of genetics or of the brain’s physiology to estimate how such tinkering might have taken place." Making a jump from "some other factor was involved" to "X did it!" would be an argument from ignorance. The currently inexplicable are just that. Saying, "A can't explain it, so B can!" is a false dilemma. In other words, there's an even larger hurdle of evidence to follow.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41154 - 07/31/10 12:45 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: XiaoGui17]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
People that know how science works..let's call them scientists, or more specifically, biologists, anthropologists and geologists, do not see human intelligence as problematic to evolutionary theory. The only ones that find, or should I say, manufacture inconsistencies(either with this specific or any other facet of evolutionary science) seem to be the ones that feel threatened by it. This group is composed almost entirely of creationists and supernaturalists that present cosmologies that are not compatible with scientific findings, and instead seem to be engineered out of thin air to support whatever superstition they are pandering to.

The reason nobody in the know bats an eye to any of these 'objections' is that they aren't valid. There is simply no evidence for any of these other 'theories'(I use that word in the loosest and most generous sense) posited by these revealed religions like setianism or christianity.

But no..lets discount the entire combined knowledge and combined work of the worlds greatest minds because 'set came to aquino in a vision and told him differently'. Jesus came to paul and told HIM differently too, also in a vision. Lets not forget Moses talking to the burning bush. If you believe any of this I have a bridge for sale in brooklyn. Cheap!
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#41156 - 07/31/10 01:09 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Dan_Dread]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
I agree with Dan.

Since we're on the subject of life and evolution, there was something floating around BBC and the News yesterday about possible finds of life on Mars:

[Partial Quote]

Source: http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CT...?hub=OttawaHome

In 2008, NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter determined that the Nili Fossae, a region of valleys that have cut into the Martian bedrock, contains carbonate.

The mineral, which forms in the presence of water, had previously been detected in trace amounts in Martian dust and soil.

Because carbonate is typically formed when the remains of dead organisms are buried and preserved, the finding generated considerable excitement in the scientific community.

Following this latest study, lead author Dr. Adrian J. Brown of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute in California said the indicators remain.

"We suggest that the associated hydrothermal activity would have provided sufficient energy for biological activity on early Mars at Nili Fossae," Dr. Adrian Brown said in a statement.

Using infrared light beamed from NASA's Mars Orbiter, Dr. Brown's team closely examined the composition of rocks in the Nili Fossae area. Then, they applied the same technique to rocks in Pilbara, Australia.

The Pilbara rocks, having remained on the surface of the Earth for 3.5 billion years, afford scientists the chance to examine evidence of the planet's early geological history.

Of particular note are the 'stromatolites' formed in the rocks by ancient microbes and preserved there for billions of years.

Now the team believes that the same 'hydrothermal' processes that preserved these markers of life on Earth could have taken place in the four-billion-year-old Nili Fossae.

Comparing the composition of rocks on the two planets, researchers found they each contained similar properties.

"They indicate that biomarkers or evidence of living organisms, if produced at Nili, could have been preserved, as they have been in the North Pole Dome region of the Pilbara craton," Dr. Brown said in a statement.


[End Quote]

I just thought this was exciting news. Nili Fossae could house the remains of early Martian life then went dead long ago.

Do you suppose these early possible organisms were failed projects of Set lol?

What would be interesting would be for scientists to discover one day that those things were in fact organisms at one time that resemble the early earth ones. Then we'd have to ask how similar life forms ended up on two different planets at around the "general" time period??? Panspermia???


Edited by Caladrius (07/31/10 01:13 PM)
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#41164 - 07/31/10 02:50 PM "The Genetic Code & the Gift of Set" [Re: Anonymous]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
As a Political Scientist, I will professionally defer here to:

THE GENETIC CODE AND THE GIFT OF SET
- by Ronald L. Barrett II°
Scroll of Set, June 1988

"Beyond you who are the third ordering shall be those of the fourth, who shall again come into being by a first, to recall the high orderings of the past and to witness those of the lower orderings in their mindless self-annihilation and labor, and to continue the exalted work of the second and third orderings." - The Sixth Part of the Word of Set

Sometime about a million years ago on the southern African bush there appeared a most amazing creature. Treading on two legs, and bearing stone tools in the place of sharp teeth and claws, this being was otherwise defenseless in his environment. Yet he was somehow able to survive while in competition with predators such as saber-toothed tigers and hyenas the size of small horses.

This small creature, the ancestor of our kind, was unlike any other that had ever roamed our planet. His unique characteristics stemmed from his ability to give meaning to his perceptions and experiences, and is to this day unprecedented in any other species. Today we carry on his legacy - and more, as we take the Gift of Set to the outer limits of Xeper and Remanifestation.

It is both ironic and amazing that the most perplexing phenomena we as mankind have encountered in the objective universe is the vessel of our very own subjective universe: the human psyche. We turn our gift to look at itself, and we ask questions. How is it that this super-entity bestowed the gift of intelligence upon a pathetic primate so long ago? And what the hell is this damned thing called “intelligence” anyway?

I have a few ideas on the subject, and I would very much like to hear what other Initiates “make of it”. What follows is a synthesis of perspectives through three lenses: anthropology, molecular biology, and Black Magic.

My approach is this: If I were the Prince of Darkness, how would I create an intelligent biological organism? Creating the creator is no simple task. But considering the entity involved, the wielding of such dark power is not only the exception but the self-made rule. So for now let’s leave aside the issue of what the essence of intelligence really is and concentrate on the basic mechanics of the physical transformation.

Starting with an organism already possessing a degree of potential to start with, my selected creature would have to be physically capable of manifesting subjective genius into adaptive advantage. After all, it would hardly be fair to give intelligence to a sea anenome. Higher-order primates make for good starting material in this regard. Their fingered hands with opposable thumbs give them the dexterity to manipulate their environment in subtle ways. They possess a reasonably-large cranial capacity and the most state-of-the-art brain that random mutation has been able to provide. Additionally they live in a somewhat friendly ecological niche. Possessing few natural enemies in the treetops of the most plentiful rain forests, they would have some chance to grow and develop before things started getting tough.

Now on to that pesky little problem of transformation. True genius would involve an elegantly simple mechanism, one that would require minimum change to actuate maximal effect. To merely change the physical structure of the organism is completely out of the question: Even if the creature possessed the Gift, it would not be passed on to the next generation unless the genetic blueprint itself were changed. In fact that is all that would have to be changed for the ugly little critter to be able to give birth to its future masters. To create a new program designing a new species, it is simply a matter of getting into the gonad, into the nuclei of the sex cells (sperm and ova), and reprogramming the molecular blueprint of the old species. In other words, the way to transform an ape into a man is to reprogram him.

Reprogramming an ape into a man: In the nucleus of every cell composing every living organism on Earth, there is a blueprint for that entire creature contained on an enormously long molecule known as DNA. This DNA is like a “floppy disk” containing programs (genes) that will direct the construction of the creature in every detail, including its brain. To make the creature intelligent, you change its mind; to change its mind, you change its DNA.

The change would not have to be a very large one. Comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA indicate that they are 97% identical, yet we are quantumly different beings in terms of mental ability. Apparently a very small change in programming has gone a long way. How?

There are known to be special kinds of genes, called regulatory genes, that can control the expression of other genes. These regulatory genes can effect amazingly different physical manifestations simply by turning other genes on and off in different combinations. This is why the cells composing the brain, bone, muscle, and other tissues of your body can perform entirely different functions using identical sets of genetic information. Additionally it has been recently discovered that in two species of closely-related amphibians, the only genetic difference between them lies in a set of regulatory genes controlling their adolescent development.

Now I have a critter (the ape), the material I wish to change (DNA), and the kind of reprogramming I intend to do (regulatory gene). I could either change an existing regulatory gene or genes, or add one or two of my own. The methods for making these sorts of changes are beginning to be worked out by molecular biologists, and are currently being used for many kinds of applications in science and industry. “Cloning” is the popular term for a collection of techniques in which genes are spliced in various sorts of ways and inserted into a single-celled, bacteria-like organism, thereby transforming it. These transformed organisms can thus be reprogrammed to become biochemical factories for fun and profit. The techniques are simple and have been taught to high school students in a single afternoon.

Humans aren’t the only creatures that can reprogram DNA. There are some very simple “life”-forms that do it much better than we have been able to so far. They comprise a certain class of viruses known as retroviruses. They consist of only genetic material and an enzyme in a protein capsule. Depending upon the virus, they can insert their genes into the DNA of a host cell in such a way that the once-normal cell is transformed into a virus factory. Again depending upon the virus, this can be lethal for a whole set of cells of a certain type.

Not all viruses are lethal, however, and some have made genetic changes without any detrimental effect on the host. There is now some evidence for the possibility that we may contain genes which were the result of a retrovirus infecting our ancestors sometime in the distant past. These genes are called proviruses and are believed to be no longer active. But there is no reason why they couldn’t be.

Now the pieces come together in a very intriguing fashion. The model I am proposing is this: The Prince of Darkness could well have provided the Gift in the form of a master program: a regulatory gene or genes which would affect other genes. This gene would be spliced into a non-lethal retrovirus that would infect only the sex-cells of the ancestor primate. The former species would then mate and produce the protohuman progeny, who would then go on to reproduce themselves.

Set as the master molecular biologist? At some point he would have to make a physical alteration, as the human psyche would be unable to adequately express itself in an inadequate brain. At some point physical changes are necessary, and these would have to be done in a simple but complete way. Genetic alteration can accomplish this, given the dark genius to guide the mechanisms in a very elegant manner so as to effect the transformation with only a small set of instructions.

William S. Burroughs once said, “Language is a virus from outer space.” I am suggesting that this may indeed be so. What are the implications?

Our genes are fossils of the past, and molecular biology is providing insights into our evolutionary past. Race-memory is real; it exists in the genes located in our DNA. Some of the information has long since changed; some is much the same now as it was millions of years ago.

Most DNA has been thought to be “garbage” containing no real information at all. Developmental biologists, however, are changing this perception. The expression “hen’s teeth”, for instance, has some basis in fact. Apparently an early ancestor of the chicken had a set of teeth. While this trait no longer exists in the modern bird, chicken fetuses have been induced to grow some tooth tissue using some special gene-activating factors. This experiment has demonstrated that a creature can contain remnants of its evolutionary past in the form of genes that have long since been deactivated yet are nevertheless hanging around.

If Set left a genetic fingerprint of his handiwork, it would be very difficult to find. Human DNA contains about 6 billion bits of information coding for an estimated 100,000 genes in a 4-character language. That is a lot of information. Currently there is a major project ongoing to sequence all of the human DNA. We will soon have the complete set of instructions for construction of an entire human being. This information will mean very little to us at the moment, but will be progressively more useful in the future. [Ed. Note: As we go to press, I understand that fundamentalist religious and some ethnic groups are pressuring Congress to suppress this DNA-deciphering effort. The stated grounds are concern for “genetic mutations out of control”, but it doesn’t take much imagination to see what’s really behind the effort.]

If the Gift is contained on the DNA, we will have that also. We will be able to play with it and manipulate it. We will be able to affect our evolution in a very direct way - to program our biological future. We’ll be able to do this even if we don’t find such a gene; we’re starting to already.

Given this information, there is much to be considered by the Black Magician. Following are some sample ideas and scenarios:

1. Up to this time I have mentioned only the known intelligence of the human race. What of the possibility of other creatures receiving the Gift? Dolphins appear to be good candidates for such an occurrence. Could they have developed their intelligence in a more subjective context, not needing to do the kind of environmental manipulation required of humans on land?

2. Suppose the Gift is a set of multiple genes, with one of them yet to be activated - waiting for a human hand to turn it on? [Ed. Note: In effect a genetic version of 2001: A Space Odyssey.]

3. Suppose the Gift consisted of only one gene, and that it was a piece of DNA containing exactly 666 bits of information? This is not outside the range of a small gene. Suppose the “waiting” gene discussed in #2 above possesses this characteristic?

4. The revolution in molecular biology is providing tremendous applications in biological warfare. While the United States and the Soviet Union have agreed not to produce offensive biological weapons, they are currently engaged in research having to do with “defensive scenarios”. Since a “defensive scenario” requires a weapon against which to defend, we are currently producing real weapons for these “what if” situations. There are plans to build a test-chamber in Utah.

5. The cold war may be the least of our worries. Unlike nuclear technology, both the information and the tools are readily accessible in biotechnology. Remember the stories about college students designing and building their own nuclear devices? In the near future we may have the doomsday capability in our hands without the lack of “plutonium” to prevent someone from implementing it. I’m talking not just about small governments and terrorist groups, but also about individuals.

[Ed. Note: Adept Barrett is an accomplished scholar in the fields of biology and anthropology, and in March of this year was invited to St. Louis to deliver a paper on “Voodoo Science: Superstitious Practices in Biological Research” to the prestigious Central States Anthropological Society. Dr. & Mrs. Aquino attended the lecture, as did Priestess Linda Reynolds, who flew in from Nashville, Tennessee. I foresee big trouble if he ever teams up with Priest Whitaker ...]

[2010 Note: Adept Barrett went on to become Magister Barrett and the Grand Master of the Order of the Trapezoid following Ipsissimus Stephen Flowers. Dr. Barrett is presently a distinguished Professor of Anthropology at Stanford University.]
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41165 - 07/31/10 03:23 PM Re: "The Genetic Code & the Gift of Set" [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Quote:
They possess a reasonably-large cranial capacity and the most state-of-the-art brain that random mutation has been able to provide. Additionally they live in a somewhat friendly ecological niche. Possessing few natural enemies in the treetops of the most plentiful rain forests, they would have some chance to grow and develop before things started getting tough.

This particular part gave me quite a laugh honestly. "Somewhat friendly" and "few natural enemies"? As far as I know almost any creature (except herbivores) saw our ancestors as a good harmless pack of meat.. Consider it as walking smeared in blood in the savanna during the night.

 Quote:
Dr. Barrett is presently a distinguished Professor of Anthropology at Stanford University.

Congratulations to him, yet this once again confirms my point that even a "doctor", "professor" or any other academic title is not an automatic filter for woo-ish belief.
Besides, the text is almost 22 years old. No need to revise it a bit? I guess some of his ideas/thoughts have been altered a bit or at least have been reconsidered during that span of time.

The text contains some facts which are true, it was somewhat dissappointing to almost read it as yet another excuse for filling gaps with theistic beliefs. If I can replace the word "Set" with "God" or "intelligent designer" I'm quite sure almost any skeptic will recognize it as an attempt of creationists to make sense.


Edited by Dimitri (07/31/10 03:23 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#41166 - 07/31/10 03:38 PM Re: "The Genetic Code & the Gift of Set" [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Quote:
Crows as Clever as Great Apes, Study Says
James Owen in London
for National Geographic News
December 9, 2004

Anyone who has watched crows, jays, ravens and other members of the corvid family will know they're anything but "birdbrained."

For instance, jays will sit on ant nests, allowing the angry insects to douse them with formic acid, a natural pesticide which helps rid the birds of parasites. Urban-living carrion crows have learned to use road traffic for cracking tough nuts. They do this at traffic light crossings, waiting patiently with human pedestrians for a red light before retrieving their prize.

Yet corvids may be even cleverer than we think. A new study suggests their cognitive abilities are a match for primates such as chimpanzees and gorillas. Furthermore, crows may provide clues to understanding human intelligence.

Published tomorrow in the journal Science, the study is co-authored by Nathan Emery and Nicola Clayton, from the departments of animal behavior and experimental psychology at Cambridge University, England.

They say that, while having very different brain structures, both crows and primates use a combination of mental tools, including imagination and the anticipation of possible future events, to solve similar problems. They base their argument on existing studies.

Emery and Clayton write, "These studies have found that some corvids are not only superior in intelligence to birds of other avian species (perhaps with the exception of some parrots), but also rival many nonhuman primates."

Increasingly, scientists agree that it isn't physical need that makes animal smart, but social necessity. Group living tends to be a complicated business, so for individuals to prosper they need to understand exactly what's going on. So highly social creatures like dolphins, chimps, and humans tend to be large-brained and intelligent.

Large Brains

The study notes that crows are also social and have unusually large brains for their size. "It is relatively the same size as the chimpanzee brain," the authors said.

They say that crows and apes both think about their social and physical surroundings in complex ways, using tool use as an example.

Like apes, many birds employ tools to gather food, but it isn't clear whether chimps or crows appreciate how these tools work. It may be that they simply discover their usefulness by accident. However, studies of New Caledonian crows, from the South Pacific, suggest otherwise.

New Caledonian crows manufacture two very different types of tool for finding prey. Hooks crafted from twigs are used to poke grubs from holes in trees, while they also cut up stiff leaves with their beaks, carefully sculpting them into sharp instruments for probing leaf detritus for insects and other invertebrates.

A New Caledonian crow in captivity learned how to bend a piece of straight wire into a hook to probe for food.

Such sophisticated tool manufacture and use is unique in non-human wild animals, according to Jackie Chappell, a UK-based zoologist who has studied the birds.

Emery and Clayton compare the crow's handiwork to minor human technological innovations. And because different New Caledonian crow populations make these tools to slightly different designs, some scientists take this as evidence of some form of culture, as has been suggested in chimpanzees.

Other corvids may use memories of past experiences to plan ahead.

In the case of Western scrub jays, a previous study by Emery and Clayton suggests jays with past experience of pilfering food caches collected by other jays can then use this knowledge to protect their own caches.

Lab experiments showed that if a habitual thief was observed while burying its own cache, it would later go back and move it when no other bird was looking. Meanwhile, "innocent" jays did not exhibit the same cunning.

Imagination?

The researchers also argue that such behavior suggests Western scrub jays are able to second guess another's intentions, or, to put it another way, get into another bird's mind. In which case, this could be evidence for imagination.

Emery and Clayton write, "Western scrub jays may present a case for imagination because the jays needed to have remembered the previous relevant social context, used their own experience of having been a thief to predict the behavior of a pilferer, and determined the safest course of action to protect the caches from pilferage."

Studies to assess similar cognitive abilities in apes have been inconclusive, according to John Pearce, professor of psychology at Cardiff University in Wales.

"[The Western scrub jay study] is some of the best evidence going that one animal can understand what another is thinking," he added.

Pearce believes we can gain insights into the basic mechanisms of human intelligence through the study of animals. He says language is generally considered to be one of the major divisions between human and animal intelligence, which makes Western scrub jays especially noteworthy.

He said, "What's so interesting is that while Western scrub jays may not have language, the research shows they've got many of the intellectual abilities that humans have. This suggests that many of our intellectual abilities which we think we need language for perhaps we don't in fact need language for. That then makes us try to understand these abilities in a different way."

If we're as smart as we think we are, perhaps we need to keep an even closer eye on those clever old crows.


I think there is more research and evidence out there showing human intelligence is not as unique as most think it is.
Of course one can easily avoid the problem and move the gift a bit further into time. Before we know it the genesis was really Set's work. ;\)

D.

Top
#41171 - 07/31/10 06:36 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Anonymous]
Oxus Online
member


Registered: 04/15/10
Posts: 509
Where does the Gift of Set come into play here?

Anyway, the thread is too long for me so I will comment on the OP.

Every Belief system speaks of the 'Word' the Logos, AUM, the Divine Utterance, etc.

If we can conceive that we all exist and function within the four dimensions that we know and understand. Then there 'perhaps' exist other dimensions that physicists have theorized which we don't exist in and can't understand.

The aspect of Time is a complex subject. Physicists explain that Time doesn't exist that it is subjective and relevant only to your precise point in space. Michio Kaku likes to explain the Universe and our Being to that of being inside a ball of which the wall is a continuous mirror. Imagine what that would be like.

Perhaps then, all the mythological ideas of eternity and Ouroboric cycling has some merit?

We all exist in the Timeless folds of the Objective Universe, but we do not come into existence until we 'Utter' our-Self into existence by way of our Subjective Universe?

Egyptian gods Uttered themselves into existence, the Abrahamic god spoke the Word, Hindu deities were created out of the Primordial Vibration AUM.


Ir Shti Shta-tu
OXUS


 Originally Posted By: Anonymous
most Satanists ( except spiritual satanists ) are atheists.
That means, they do not believe in Gods, and satans existence.
Can this worldview withstand scrutiny faced and based on the scientific knowledge, we have today ?
i can say confidently, not.
A close examination of the scientific facts evidence that a
naturalistic worldview is irrational.

I will present below a view arguments, which lead to this conclusion :

The naturalistic worldview does not explain satisfactorly

- the origin of the universe aka

why is there something, rather than nothing ?

the universe had a beginning
everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
since the universe had a beginning, it had a cause.

- the fine-tuning of the universe.

there are up to date over 120 finetune constants known to man.
how can these be explained, unless a ID finely tuned them to life ?
the vastness of the universe is entailed to our existence.
If it would not the that large, we could not exist.
the solar - moon - earth system is finely tuned to life

- life on earth

abiogenesis is not possible - its evidence that a naturalistic explanation can be discarded
the complexity of the cell is evidence of a creator

DNA is not merely a pattern. Its a code, a language, and a information storage mechanism
all information has as origin a mind
therefore, DNA was created by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my argument. All you need is one.

Einstein’s Gulf:

On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional spacetime relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages . Between the two realms we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.

Top
#41172 - 07/31/10 08:46 PM Bird the Impaler [Re: Diavolo]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
 Quote:
Crows as Clever as Great Apes, Study Says
James Owen in London
for National Geographic News
December 9, 2004

...
Like apes, many birds employ tools to gather food, but it isn't clear whether chimps or crows appreciate how these tools work.
...


I think there is more research and evidence out there ...


I have a little anecdotal story to add.

I have a large bougainvillea bush on the side of my house. If you're not familiar with those, they are similar to a rose in the way that they have thorns, and lots of them, only on the bougainvillea they are very long and thick... like a thick sewing needle.

One day I walked by it and noticed a funky smell. While looking closer I realized that there were several small snake carcasses impaled on some of the 'spikes'. I thought about it for a while but couldn't reason out how they'd gotten there.

A while later a friend and I were standing on my driveway when a garden variety mockingbird flew by. My friend noticed that it had something hanging from its mouth and pointed it out. A few seconds later we heard a commotion and went around the side and saw the bird stabbing the snake that was in its mouth into the bougainvillea bush.

This is probably apropos of nothing, and not offered as proof of any kind. Your article reminded me of that incident though as it's a rather clear use of available methods to exterminate a potential predator.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#41173 - 07/31/10 09:14 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Dan_Dread]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
...The only ones that find, or should I say, manufacture inconsistencies(either with this specific or any other facet of evolutionary science) seem to be the ones that feel threatened by it... The reason nobody in the know bats an eye to any of these 'objections' is that they aren't valid... But no..lets discount the entire combined knowledge and combined work of the worlds greatest minds because 'set came to aquino in a vision and told him differently'... If you believe any of this I have a bridge for sale in brooklyn. Cheap!


*sigh*... Here again I thought I made a few things abundantly clear:

1) I posted for the sake of clarifying what Dr. Aquino was arguing because people were attacking arguments he didn't make and positions he didn't hold, and that's a waste of time.

You don't refute Christianity by attacking the Koran and you don't refute the Prometheus Theory by attacking creationism or its arguments. Does pointing out the distinction between these positions mean I advocate either position? Obviously not. Which brings me to my other point...

2) Just because I comprehend what Dr. Aquino's position was does not mean I advocate or accept it. In fact, I put a very heavy emphasis (see last two paragraphs) on exactly why I do not accept it.

This being the case, I'm not sure what your little response to me was meant to accomplish. What, exactly, are you trying to convince me of? I don't disagree with you on the matter of science or evolution as far as I can see, so I'd recommend you save your efforts for those who do. M'kay?

EDIT: I am yet to meet a creationist (or any other person holding a similar "interventionist" position) that did not have some fundamental misunderstanding of exactly how evolution works and what evolutionary theory states. That being the case, I'd say the ability to comprehend what exactly the opposition is claiming is a strength far more often found in those holding the correct position than those holding the incorrect position. Theory of mind is a wonderful thing, one of the things that makes the brains of Homo sapiens such wonderful organs in the first place. The fact that you can't seem to wrap your mind around either Dr. Aquino's position or my own tells me it's a skill you're sorely lacking.


Edited by XiaoGui17 (07/31/10 09:36 PM)
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41174 - 07/31/10 10:02 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: XiaoGui17]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
A god is a god is a god.
It's all the same.
If you think Set, Jesus's Dad, Tiamat, or Odin gave you intelligence and made humans their special pet project it's all the same. You end up on your knees worshiping an idea that was created by some drunken idiot who was afraid of the darkness.

Get it? Its all the same.
Its a big fucking leap of faith for a given situation that one knows nothing about.

I think you need to get more. There are a lot of Xitians that understand how evolution/mutation works. They just don't give a shit, meaning they don't care. They can see it, read it, look at it, but it doesn't mean anything because in their unmoving dumb sheep heart's God (Jesus's Dad) created everything in 7 days.

I would refrain from attacking and being nasty to Dan, your last comment was unbecoming and totally unnecessary to the discussion.

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



Top
#41175 - 07/31/10 10:23 PM Well looky here! [Re: XiaoGui17]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Well Well Well, It seems our little cotton-candy Satanist might have some fire in her after all! \:\)

I have to admit I am pleasantly surprised.

Now, on to business.

Firstly, the post you replied to wasn't to you. My mistake using the quick reply button, so I can see how you thought that it was. No matter though, you still stepped on the lions tail..so lets break this down.
 Quote:

I posted for the sake of clarifying what Dr. Aquino was arguing because people were attacking arguments he didn't make and positions he didn't hold, and that's a waste of time.

 Quote:

You don't refute Christianity by attacking the Koran and you don't refute the Prometheus Theory by attacking creationism or its arguments.

I have not addressed anything that was not first put on the table by aquino himself. His initial claim was a lack of transitory forms is damaging to evolutionary theory. I clarified why that was not the case. He further claimed we should expect to see a complete fossil record if evolution was true. I again explained why that was not the case. He then claimed we should expect to see a wide variety of 'intermediate' primates still alive today if evolution were true. Again, I explained why that was not the case.

He also made the claim that evolutionary theory could not account for human intelligence, instead requiring some level of divine interference to explain. I then pointed out that the gap between us and the other great apes, in terms of intelligence, is not that great at all. Aquino neglected to address any of these points further, instead choosing to employ rhetoric.
 Quote:

The fact that you can't seem to wrap your mind around either Dr. Aquino's position or my own tells me it's a skill you're sorely lacking.

I understand aquinos position quite well thank you. As for yours..well frankly I find your posts to be long on words and short on substance, so I haven't been reading them.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#41177 - 08/01/10 01:18 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Morgan]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
A god is a god is a god.
It's all the same.
If you think Set, Jesus's Dad, Tiamat, or Odin gave you intelligence and made humans their special pet project it's all the same. You end up on your knees worshiping an idea that was created by some drunken idiot who was afraid of the darkness ...

Well, no, it isn't quite. The Judæo/Christian God is a sadist; at least that's what I took away from The Ten Commandments, etc. as a child. YHVH's version of the Gift of Set was a booby-trapped tree in the Garden of Eden, avoidable only if A&E already possessed the knowledge to avoid it, which of course they did not until after the trap was sprung: giving YHVH a prearranged "excuse" to screw humanity endlessly thereafter.

The Norse, Greek, & Roman gods were involved mostly in their own soap operas, becoming involved with humans, dwarves, nymphs, & other Earthly denizens only occasionally - out of sport, libido, whatever. Prometheus' theft & gift of the divine fire was not the gods' decision, and indeed it rather pissed them off where he was concerned. Siegfried stumbled into his divine succession by breaking Odin's spear with his sword, but without awakening to the consequences of this rash act. It remained for Parsifal to see, then find, then incarnate the Grail.

The Egyptian neteru are involved with humanity only to the extent that their OU principles weave through any physical extension in time and space. Set is similarly a principle, but uniquely the one which enables individuals, through consciousness, to become aware of, and aware of their distinction from, the OU of the other neteru.

The Great Old Ones and the Other Gods, of course, are utterly uninterested in any of the above. For them, humanity is just something good to eat - usually sloppily.

So if you are interested in gods, you have your choice of these [and plenty of others]. I don't recommend the GOO/OGs, however, unless you prefer a short and unpleasant religious experience.

So this thread, as indeed various others in 600C, has once again lost the integrity of its reasoning to a chest-thumping pledge of allegiance to Atheism. Any argument which strays from the gospel of absolute randomness & accident in the human phenomenon commits the blasphemy of "THEISM!" and must be denounced to & by the Thought Police. This "THEISM!" has thus, and not a little ironically, become the 600C's "Devil". As per the above examples, no one takes the time to consider that the unnaturalness of humanity does not automatically mean its enslavement, degradation, domestication, or any other humiliation. Quite the contrary: it raises those awakened to it beyond the boundaries of the OU, to their own, individual, unique divinity.

So I wonder [again] what is so terrifying to you about this prospect that you must rush to deny it, distort it, blot it out? Why should you so fanatically insist upon an image of yourself as nothing more than a random accident of dust?

The ideologues of antiTHEISM! will shout, "Because it is true! We are all nothing! We came out of nothing, we will return to nothing, and in the meantime everything about us is nothing more than a random spasm of stimulus/response. That is it, and that is all!"

Well, like Plato, I can enter the cave and unchain those facing the Darkness; but I cannot force anyone to turn around and face, much less enter the Light. Within the limits of the 600C Forum, I merely assert that it is possible, and is your option.

Or you can choose to be dust, and, in perhaps the greatest of all ironies, glorify your nothingness with the name and image of precisely that Principle which exists to offer you more than that.

Therefore I have no real interest in responding to dust-posts, except on occasion with a bit of whimsical humor. I am not here for the dust, but for the Fire, which, when I see it flickering anew in any human, I rejoice in the Coming Into Being of yet another god.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41180 - 08/01/10 02:14 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino




So this thread, as indeed various others in 600C, has once again lost the integrity of its reasoning to a chest-thumping pledge of allegiance to Atheism. Any argument which strays from the gospel of absolute randomness & accident in the human phenomenon commits the blasphemy of "THEISM!" and must be denounced to & by the Thought Police. This "THEISM!" has thus, and not a little ironically, become the 600C's "Devil".

[...]

Well, like Plato, I can enter the cave and unchain those facing the Darkness; but I cannot force anyone to turn around and face, much less enter the Light. Within the limits of the 600C Forum, I merely assert that it is possible, and is your option.




I don't think its really about "Atheism versus theism" Aquino. It's more about rational people versus a guy who has a "one-size-fits-all" explanation. You can't even talk about evolution without falling back to "Set" and quoting Setian "scriptures."

And I doubt you are the liberator in Plato's cave. If I recall correctly there are people in the cave watching shadows dancing on the walls. The elders up in the front of the cave interprets the dancing shadows for the cave people.

There is one guy in the front of that cave named Aquino who interprets those shadows as Set and Neterus...

Rather than cast your eyes [Awareness: Chitta] on the 'subject' of this discussion to see it and apprehend it as it is [samma dhiti] you instead misdirect your own attention [Chitta] and other [your 5 followers] onto something called "Set" and you glorify this idol [in so far that it fixates Chitta's awareness onto itself - attachment/tanha] as the answer to all things. How is that in essence different then what Christians do? It's the same shit, different ass.

Just check yourself in this thread. You can't even rationally talk about evolution without pulling out your buddy Set and using "him" to explain things... and you even use the same scripture quoting tactics [quoting yourself and other pro-Toser sources].

Everybody in this thread seems to be throwing ideas and arguments about the idea and concept of evolution like they should to me... mean while you bring out your sock puppet Set in this thread. Nobody 'derailed' this thread but Set.
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#41181 - 08/01/10 03:05 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
My point was that you could substitute any god in that text and make someone else happy.

"chest-thumping pledge of allegiance to Atheism."
Hmm, I don't think I did/said this, but if Set is a neteru/principle/idea then why would he need to be worshiped?

If he is an idea created by humans, how is he also a godform?
Or is it more like a HGA that comes down and inspires you once you possibly reach "enlightenment" ala Crowley?

"I can enter the cave and unchain those facing the Darkness; but I cannot force anyone to turn around and face, much less enter the Light"

I have been in the cave, and I know what lies in the Darkness. I have no need to go towards anyone else's version of the light. I can see quite well with my own Black Flame.

Thought Police, me?? I don't know about that but I do look good in my Police uniform.

If at the end of it all, I find myself in some gods presence, I will punch him for being a dick/absentee landlord. If at the end of it all, I am just dust in the wind, may I blind my enemies.


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



Top
#41182 - 08/01/10 03:20 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Morgan]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
 Originally Posted By: Morgan



If at the end of it all, I find myself in some gods presence, I will punch him for being a dick/absentee landlord. If at the end of it all, I am just dust in the wind, may I blind my enemies.


Morgan




"Absentee Landlord;" I'll have to remember that...

"Dust In The Wind" is a beautiful song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qxSwJC3Ly0
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#41184 - 08/01/10 03:49 AM Re: Well looky here! [Re: Dan_Dread]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Well Well Well, It seems our little cotton-candy Satanist might have some fire in her after all! \:\)

I have to admit I am pleasantly surprised.

Cotton candy? I prefer "bubble gum." ;\) I may come across as an MCoS Powerpuff Girl, but I'm Buttercup, not Bubbles.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
His initial claim was a lack of transitory forms is damaging to evolutionary theory… He further claimed we should expect to see a complete fossil record if evolution was true…

I just re-scanned Aquino’s every post looking for where he said that, and came up blank. In his first post, Dr. Aquino asked for “intermediates,” which I took to mean, as you described, “'intermediate' primates still alive today.” I suppose you could say he meant transitory forms/missing links. But I don’t see much to support that interpretation, besides others’ replies.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
…well frankly I find your posts to be long on words and short on substance, so I haven't been reading them.

I'll admit I'm a long winded bitch and I don't always know when to shut up, but I think it's a bit premature to claim I'm "short on substance" if you haven't read my posts in the first place. "TL, DR" would have sufficed.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41186 - 08/01/10 03:54 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Morgan]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
A god is a god is a god.
It's all the same.
If you think Set, Jesus's Dad, Tiamat, or Odin gave you intelligence and made humans their special pet project it's all the same. You end up on your knees worshiping an idea that was created by some drunken idiot who was afraid of the darkness.

Get it? Its all the same.
Its a big fucking leap of faith for a given situation that one knows nothing about.

That’s all well and good if Dan Dread & company wanted to smugly think to themselves how silly Aquino’s position is. But when someone actively challenges the advocate of a particular claim with a rebuttal, they need to make an actual argument. An argument is a collective series of statements meant to establish a proposition. “All gods are imaginary!” isn’t an argument; it’s a verbal middle finger. If you think all theism is stupid and unworthy of discussion, you don’t discuss it all. The second someone initiates a debate about Set or any other being, they need to have straight what it is they’re arguing against.

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
I think you need to get more. There are a lot of Xitians that understand how evolution/mutation works. They just don't give a shit, meaning they don't care. They can see it, read it, look at it, but it doesn't mean anything because in their unmoving dumb sheep heart's God (Jesus's Dad) created everything in 7 days.

When I referred to “creationists,” I wasn’t talking about the everyday Xian who rejects evolution because he doesn’t like it. I’m talking about an active advocate of creationism (Ben Stein, Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, etc) that actually formulates arguments for his position (irreducible complexity, missing links, or attempts to undermine the veracity of carbon dating). All of these arguments hinge on a false understanding of the science they are attacking. Whether the advocates are ignorant or just playing dumb, their arguments are based on a foundation of ignorance. As for whether they hold these positions in good faith, I’ve successfully convinced a few (now former) creationists in the past once I clarified their misunderstandings, so at least some of them are genuinely confused and not just in denial.

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
I would refrain from attacking and being nasty to Dan, your last comment was unbecoming and totally unnecessary to the discussion.

In this thread, when I commented on every other word out of a new member’s mouth being profanity, you replied (to someone who concurred with me),

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
This isn't the MCOS, we aren't nice and fucking hand holding hippies.

You’ve said as much elsewhere. OK, then—I get it. The 600 Club is a tough community. We’re not here to sit around a campfire, make organic s’mores, and sing Kumbaya to the Dark Lord.

So presumably, if I’m in a heated argument and everyone’s got their claws out, and if I back up what I’m saying, I could be as verbally aggressive as everyone else was already being… right?

Let’s review what’s been said in this thread: ta2zz referred to Aquino’s inquiry as a “stupid question,”, Autodidact (a more junior member than me) ran with this and described Aquino as a “stupid person,”, 6Satan6Archist6 said of Aquino “just when I thought my opinion of you couldn't get any lower,” Aquino implied that Dan Dread is an ape (and referred to him as a 40 watt bulb), ceruleansteel said that Aquino’s assertions are all pulled out of his ass, and Dan Dread referred to Aquino’s arguments as “hollow rhetorical bullshit.”

Out of all that was said, my post was “nasty” and “unbecoming”?

Seeing as he described himself as “pleasantly surprised,” it would appear Dan Dread is, at the very least, all in one piece in spite of lil’ ol’ me giving him a hard time about what turned out to be a reasonable misunderstanding about who he was addressing in his post. He’s a big boy. I’m sure he can take care of himself.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41187 - 08/01/10 04:11 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: XiaoGui17]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Xio shut up and stop defending Aquino. How can you breathe so far up his ass?

Once again you miss the point of what I said. You should go and re-read it.

Ohh, good for you you changed some creationist minds so they are more confused. What did you change them into? Idiots with common sense or just regular Xitians?

So suck a dick. That was a introduction thread where all you idiots jumped on a new members cock and he didn't deserve it. Thanks to shit like that, we lose quality members. Your comment in regards to Dan was pointless and didn't fit the discussion. Two completely different things/situations. If you can't see or understand the difference, I pity you.

If you are trying to be tough in your posts and back your shit up, you are failing. There is a difference between coming across strong with information and playing at being strong.

I try to avoid personal attacks Vanessa but I think you need to get a better grip on your Satanic wanna be shit. I call it like I see it, your previous posting comments were unnecessary. Maybe I just hold female supposed Satanist to a higher standard.

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



Top
#41188 - 08/01/10 04:15 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: XiaoGui17]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:


That’s all well and good if Dan Dread & company wanted to smugly think to themselves how silly Aquino’s position is. But when someone actively challenges the advocate of a particular claim with a rebuttal, they need to make an actual argument

Not really. There is no need to argue against theism. It is up to the one making the positive claim to provide evidence if said claim is to be taken seriously, and 'set told me so' is certainly not very persuasive. At least not to anyone with a 3 digit IQ.

In that sense, theism is theism is theism, as Morgan so aptly stated. Any belief that requires an invocation of faith to stand is epistemologically worthless, and is on a level playing field with any other claim of faith.

This is why all faith claims are equal, and completely unworthy of consideration.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#41189 - 08/01/10 04:30 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: XiaoGui17]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Quote:
But when someone actively challenges the advocate of a particular claim with a rebuttal, they need to make an actual argument. An argument is a collective series of statements meant to establish a proposition. “All gods are imaginary!” isn’t an argument; it’s a verbal middle finger.

You are making a valid claim here, but the attitude is an automatic reaction towards the always repeated question "state it". Most are done here with argumenting against the belief in gods or other mythological creations.
Another remark would be the obvious question "what the hell is he/she doing here" when the general non-belief in gods is obvious, yet someone who claims to have been reading and looking around for some time starts talking about "dark gods", sub-dimensional beings etc... I fail to see the logic of giving texts in which the belief in a god is used for explanation in a place where atheists reside. This attitude is what I see as a verbal middle finger.
I even wonder why Aquino ended up with a blue jacket in the first place. Admitted he has some knowledge about what happened pre-1975 and some contributions towards Satanism back then, he neverless turned his back many years ago and dedicated himself to Set. His repeated nagging over theist vs Atheist would have resulted in almost a permaban to other members if they even dared to do the same.

The Setian philosophy can be located under LHP-thought, yet is vastly different from what is thought about here. As I see it, Set and his magical inspiration/explanations do not belong here.



Edited by Dimitri (08/01/10 04:44 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#41191 - 08/01/10 05:18 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Morgan]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Xio shut up and stop defending Aquino. How can you breathe so far up his ass?


Defending? I made a point of stating how he had fallen short of establishing his position. How does that constitute a defense?

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Maybe I just hold female supposed Satanist to a higher standard.


Good to know you at least have some excuse for giving me shit where others in this thread were let off making gratuitous personal attacks and insulting one anothers' intelligence.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41192 - 08/01/10 05:22 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: XiaoGui17]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
If he can not explain HIS own personal interactions and answer questions about a group/religion HE created, how can you?
In that regard you are defending him and his position.

Get it?

No, not an excuse. I just call it like I see it. You still need to get a better grip on things Vanessa.

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



Top
#41193 - 08/01/10 05:27 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Morgan]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
No, not an excuse. I just call it like I see it. You still need to get a better grip on things Vanessa.

Morgan


What would constitute a "better grip," exactly? Constantly reading/explaining/learning about things that I already agree with? What's the point of dialogue if I'm all doing is constantly reinforcing beliefs I already hold or confirming a position I already support? That's intellectual masturbation.

Excuse the flying fuck out of me for playing devil's advocate and actually taking the time to understand my opposition. I like the challenge. Apparently, it's frowned upon to build up one's opponents and attempt to actually address something on equal footing. No, let's stick to shooting fish in a barrel.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41195 - 08/01/10 05:33 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: XiaoGui17]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
WHatever......

Yes, you are doing just that mental/posting masturbation.

I am so done with you derailing this thread.

I still want Aquino to answer my questions if he can find them behind all this recent bullshit. Not you because you don't get it, or understand anything I fucking wrote previously.

Next....

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



Top
#41197 - 08/01/10 09:24 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Morgan]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
To me the "Gift of Set" is a Promethean approach to put a first cause, the genesis of consciousness (or intelligence) in this case, into our evolution. Because humans "feel" special, there has to have happened something special. In some ways it is like dragging god by the ears into the Neolithic period.

What puzzles me most is why all the focus is on Egypt while the same changes were happening around the globe. Why would Set only bother with the Nile delta and if, who actually was bringing the same gift to China and other parts of the world? What date can one possibly put on the gift without having natural evolution seem more logical than divine interference?

 Quote:
<< Acts 2 >>

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.


God repeated the trick somewhat but at least he made them polyglots. Evidence god is no American. ;\)

D.

Top
#41198 - 08/01/10 10:05 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
A god is a god is a god.
It's all the same.

Well, no, it isn't quite.


Yes, it appears to me that it is.

You believe your Set is a separate, superior consciousness, with super-human powers. He's dictated a scripture to you, that use as the basis of your teachings.

From a non-Setian point of view, how is this materially different than, say, Moses?

(and yes, I've read the ebook \:\) )
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#41213 - 08/01/10 03:32 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Autodidact]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Dr. Aquino is not a stupid man by any means but me and him are very far from each other on most philosophical points. And out of the two most prominent subjects where we disagree he's showing very well in this thread why me and him dont agree in the debate on theism.

I do feel, like most here it seems, like you are using Set as just another explanation of what we cannot currently understand. And while other ToS writings seem to have some substance to it the debate on Sets intervention in the evolution of human beings seems to be very childish in nature.

I am not sure its worth discussing this. The last time I tried to go deeper into a subject which I did not agree with you on you choose to not answer me. And with everyone else here also engaging in discussions with you I do see how it can be hard to keep up. But really, to me your explanation of how Set intervened in human evolution sounds exactly like any other form of childish theism (and yes I do feel that there are forms of mature theism even if I personally dont agree with them). To me it seems like a way to explain that which hasnt yet been proven but doing so in a immature way. We don’t have evidence or a complete fossil record therefore it must be “divine intervention”.

And suddenly we are on the edge of the unnaturalness of the human psyche which is where you decided to not answer me the last time we went through it.

 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
You believe your Set is a separate, superior consciousness, with super-human powers. He's dictated a scripture to you, that use as the basis of your teachings.

From a non-Setian point of view, how is this materially different than, say, Moses?

(and yes, I've read the ebook \:\) )


Seems like you didn’t read it close enough. Aquino goes into some detail about how it was NOT dictated to him if I remember correctly.

Top
#41214 - 08/01/10 03:34 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Anonymous]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Good grief.

Never before have I seen such a 600C food fight.

Looky here, this all started out as a very basic question: Why should the intelligence & consciousness level of humanity be so substantially greater than that of any other species on this planet? [And as a corollary: Why should the normal forces of evolution, which function on the basis of simple/minimal natural selection, have taken such a complex route? Why not simply bodily health & strength instead?]

All I have seen so far in response are dolphins & crows , and as a frantic last resort, howlings about THEISM!

Natural evolution is a sensible theory. When times are tough, the stronger, better-adapted, and smarter survive to reproduce. So far, so good. But in this nature takes the easiest, quickest way out, because a group of primates being chased by saber-toothed tigers doesn't have time to do brain/consciousness expansion. Instead the ones who run the slowest become tiger-dinner. Thus there is a good case for proto-primates having naturally evolved into healthier, stronger, meaner ones, with the commensurate (!) intelligence to maximize these qualities. There is no case for what we are instead of this: a being completely at odds with all other planetary species and their indeed-natural evolutionary paths.

If you want to sweep this problem under the rug, or come up with all sorts of tortured efforts to jam the stepsister's foot into Cinderella's glass slipper, that's your choice. History is replete with inconvenient questions which prevalent dogma suppressed, ridiculed, or punished instead of confronting. Attempting to rephrase this one into biblical-creationism is just another such dodge.

When Arthur Clarke first took up this question, he wrote the novel Childhood's End, in which humanity had been prehistorically "adjusted" by aliens who just happened to look like the proverbial Devil. Came time for 2001, Karellen & his kind morphed into more abstract/less disturbing monoliths. Setians apprehend this functionality as Set. Others may see it as Satan, Prometheus, Odin, variations on the Krell brain-machine, an apple tree, or a Goa'uld experiment to produce more useful slaves. Whatever.

That's the "technical" part of the issue. But as so graphically evidenced in the antagonistic posts above, there is also an emotional aspect: Many people [worldwide] want the question to disappear not just because it is difficult to answer, but because they are afraid of what one or more possible answers might turn out to be. In medieval times this kind of blinders-in-place was termed scholasticism: Reasoning, research, & argument were fine as long as they all led to a predetermined, acceptable conclusion (which in that case was the Holy Bible). But this wasn't just a Christian phenomenon; the same game has been going on throughout history in all sorts of contexts.

This kind of fear generally, but especially in the case of this greatest of all questions concerning the human phenomenon, strikes me as regrettable, silly, and ultimately futile. The truth has a way of crawling back out from whatever rug it is swept under, no matter how firmly that rug is nailed down. If you consider yourselves "Satanists", you should be pulling out nails, not hammering more in - and this pertains not just to other people's inconvenient questions.

What I have said above is that I will decline to play this old game here. If the 600C wishes to, that's entirely your affair. Though if you do so, may I offer the gentle opinion that four-letter words and ad hominems don't help much of anything, least of all the speaker's dignity. There are occasions when only one expression will do, as in the last words of the mayor of Hiroshima: "What the fuck was that?" Most dialogue, however, falls rather short of this threshold.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41224 - 08/01/10 03:53 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

Why should the intelligence & consciousness level of humanity be so substantially greater than that of any other species on this planet?


Well, it isn't. You have yet to provide any substance for this idea that you assume we should all just accept as axiomatic. The evidence does not support your case.



 Quote:

There is no case for what we are instead of this: a being completely at odds with all other planetary species and their indeed-natural evolutionary paths.

Again, this is a projection on your part based on your limited understanding of how evolution works. 'Fitter' does not always means faster or stronger. The only things at odds here are your theology with reality.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#41227 - 08/01/10 04:00 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
SODOMIZER Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/04/10
Posts: 61
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Looky here, this all started out as a very basic question: Why should the intelligence & consciousness level of humanity be so substantially greater than that of any other species on this planet?

And as a corollary: Why should the normal forces of evolution, which function on the basis of simple/minimal natural selection, have taken such a complex route? Why not simply bodily health & strength instead?


Oh, these are interesting questions!

My answer: the universe is unconscious, and benefits from having conscious actors capable of (but not always doing) what evolution normally does.

The real kicker is that there's a race on for each planet to produce an intelligent species that can travel to other planets, make war on them, rape their women, and dominate the universe.

Natural selection continues its path not toward creating the strongest animal, but the animal able to plan ahead and avoid/defeat obstacles/threats.

So maybe intelligence has always been in the game, because it alone trumps raw strength -- thus giving an additional dimension, an informational one, to the process of life.
_________________________
SC / O9A

Top
#41241 - 08/01/10 08:40 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Since there was so much bullshit on this thread since you last logged in, I thought you might have missed my questions, so I am repeating them.

http://www.the600club.com/dir/ubbthreads...=true#Post41181

I am not looking to be a pain in the ass, I really want to understand better the meaning behind the whole thing. So I will leave out the remarks and just repost the questions.


...if Set is a neteru/principle/idea then why would he need to be worshiped?

If he is an idea created by humans, how is he also a godform?
Or is it more like a HGA that comes down and inspires you once you possibly reach "enlightenment" ala Crowley?

Plus a new one, if Set is a principle how could a principle influence evolution?

Just trying to understand your view point better.

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



Top
#41255 - 08/02/10 01:57 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Morgan]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Wicked Wanda
if Set is a neteru/principle/idea then why would he need to be worshiped?

He doesn't and Setians don't.

 Originally Posted By: Set, The Book of Coming Forth by Night, North Solstice 1975
... The Satanist thought to approach Satan through ritual. Now let the Setian shun all recitation, for the text of another is an affront to the Self. Speak rather to me as to a friend, gently and without fear, and I shall hear as a friend. Do not bend your knee nor drop your eye, for such things were not done in my house at PaMat-et. But speak to me at night, for the sky then becomes an entrance and not a barrier. And those who call me the Prince of Darkness do me no dishonor.

The Setian need conjure neither curse nor kindness from me, for by the magic of my great pentagram I shall see with his eyes. And then the strength that is mine shall be the strength of the Setian, and against the Will of Set no creature of the Universe may stand. And I think not of those who think not of me ...


 Originally Posted By: WW
If he is an idea created by humans, how is he also a godform?

He isn't an idea created by humans; he is a conscious entity in his own right, who has been perceived by humans [originally] as the Egyptian Set, but later in many semblances or even abstract influences.

 Originally Posted By: WW
Or is it more like a HGA that comes down and inspires you once you possibly reach "enlightenment" ala Crowley?

No. AC considered the "HGA" as an enlightened personal daimon, a spiritual guide to the realm of the [{]neteru[/I]. Thus his "HGA" was Aiwass, through whom he was prepared to receive Liber AL: The Book of the Law from the neteru Nuit and “Ra-Hoor-Khuit” (correctly translated to “Ra-Harakte, Master of the Gods”. This is a form of HarWer (Horus the Elder - the Great Horus of pre-Osirian legend), literally “Horus of the Horizon” in his solar aspect of Xepera. Ra-Harakte had been the judge of the dead in non-Osirian Egypt, and he was also cast as the champion of Set in the Osirian-mythos trial between Set and Horus the Younger.) Crowley believed Hadit to be “Heru-pa-kraath” (Harpokrates), the infant form of Horus the Younger. He identified Nuit [correctly] as the Egyptian neter of the sky.

 Originally Posted By: WW
Plus a new one, if Set is a principle how could a principle influence evolution?

Actually the "Dawn of Man" opening sequence of 2001 illustrates this so eloquently that words would be a poor substitute. Remember that the film's abstract monolith was originally the "Devil" Karellen of Arthur Clarke's Childhood's End, whose image is merely one of many corruptions of Set.

I was having a great time with the original Stargate movie until the "neteru" turned out to be just aliens in fancy-dress. As a bit of very obscure trivia, the original idea behind that movie, back in the late 1970s, was to have the Egyptian neteru revisit Earth [rather like 2001's present-day reappearance of the monolith]. Possibly scrapped because of the religious ruckus it would cause if it included, as it presumably would have had to, debunking of all the later, corrupt, imitation religions (such as J/C/I).

Regards to Candyfloss.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41263 - 08/02/10 07:45 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Gattamelata Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/23/10
Posts: 44
The idea that someone or something adjusted/directed the human evolutionary potential to take a differing course than the course taken by other species, is an idea I personally find plausible. This someone or something does not neccesarily needs to be aliens from outer space or spiritual entities, it could also be a freak and drastic cluster of mutations et cetera. We ourselves, watching the science fiction concept of genetic engineering approaching science before our eyes, must in a not so far future contemplate the possibility of artificial evolutionary adjustments as our understanding of the genome increases.

But, from a scientifically point of view, one must conclude that there is no evidence backing this theory up. Hence it is a matter of pure belief. Thus, anyone proposing such theories should get used to be put into the same company of other equally unproven theories. And this rejection is a matter of science, not of emotion.


Edited by Gattamelata (08/02/10 07:46 AM)
Edit Reason: typos
_________________________
Society : an inferno of saviors. —Emil Cioran

Top
#41265 - 08/02/10 10:20 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Why should the intelligence & consciousness level of humanity be so substantially greater than that of any other species on this planet? [And as a corollary: Why should the normal forces of evolution, which function on the basis of simple/minimal natural selection, have taken such a complex route? Why not simply bodily health & strength instead?]

The answer is that the genetic difference is minimal but the impact is massive. The divergence between men and apes hinges on a relatively tiny mutation in a gene called FOXP2. The protein made by human FOXP2 differs from the chimpanzee protein by just two amino acids. This teensy, weensy difference had a domino effect on many other genes. This protein, because of its altered structure, now activates 61 genes in humans that are inactive in apes, and deactivates 55 genes in humans that are active in apes. So what appears to be a particularly "complex" route from man to ape is actually the result of a tiny genetic mutation.

Drastic alterations in phenotype can be made by a relatively minimal alteration in genotype. It's genotype alterations that must be minimal in order to be practical in the realm of evolution.

The impact of all these alterations was essentially a trade-off between strength and dexterity. A relatively tiny chimp can bench-press a ton, as opposed to a healthy human at maybe a quarter of that amount. These genes served, in part, to cause the brain to inhibit human strength. But the neural inhibitions on our muscles gave us an incredible degree of fine motor control. The effect on our mouths and vocal chords means humans can enunciate a number of difference phonemes while the best a chimp can do is howl. The effect on our hands means that humans can write, carve, draw, tie knots, light a fire, and type where the best a chimp can do is peel a banana.

But wouldn't such a drastic decrease in brute strength be disadvantageous in the wild? Not so much as you may think. When faced with a life-threatening situation, good old adrenaline reverts us back to a more primal state. We won't be painting any calligraphy on grains of rice, but we may just lift a car off of someone.

After that, intelligence evolved largely as a compliment to dexterity. Being a genius is useless if you can't manifest any of your great ideas. Dolphins may have massive brains that enable them to communicate quite complexly with one another, but until they evolve opposable thumbs they aren't going to be building any underwater empires.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41388 - 08/03/10 06:49 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: XiaoGui17]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
The answer is that the genetic difference is minimal but the impact is massive. The divergence between men and apes hinges on a relatively tiny mutation in a gene called FOXP2. The protein made by human FOXP2 differs from the chimpanzee protein by just two amino acids. This teensy, weensy difference had a domino effect on many other genes. This protein, because of its altered structure, now activates 61 genes in humans that are inactive in apes, and deactivates 55 genes in humans that are active in apes. So what appears to be a particularly "complex" route from man to ape is actually the result of a tiny genetic mutation.

Yes, understood, but still missing here are the "why" and the "how":

(1) Why did this particular mutation occur, since there were no external, natural-environmental forces causing it? Darwinian evolutionary theory requires external selection in favor of immediately [as in being chased by saberteeth] advantageous differences, not long/slow capacities such as higher mental faculties.

(2) How did such an intricate and multifaceted mutation (e.g. FOXP2 changing at all, and when it did, in such a way as to domino=down 55 genes & domino-up another 61). If this is what was required for our unique and high level of intelligence & consciousness, the odds against this being a purely accidental/random event would be prohibitive.

 Quote:
The impact of all these alterations was essentially a trade-off between strength and dexterity.

I'm not so sure about that claim, as humans can beefcake themselves up pretty well [and not necessarily through exercise-planning & diet-controlling, just a demanding outdoor lifestyle]. The orangutans at the S.F. Zoo, on the other hand, are perfectly happy to goof off all the time, as do the gorillas.

 Quote:
A relatively tiny chimp can bench-press a ton

Somehow I have a hard time believing this, though I do know that chimps are stronger than most people assume from their size.

 Quote:
These genes served, in part, to cause the brain to inhibit human strength.

This doesn't make sense to me either. It follows that a highly-intelligent human would be able to conceive other ways than brute strength to accomplish tasks, and thus would not need to maximize his muscles to survive, but that's not the same thing as genes causing automatic weakening. [I have seen this kind of Procrustean logic all too often in evolution-debtates, e.g. we needed this, so we got it/we didn't need this so we lost it, and evolution simply doesn't work bass-ackwards that way. This slinks in the direction of Lamarckism, which, while beloved by Anton LaVey, doesn't, I think, stand serious scientific test.]

 Quote:
But the neural inhibitions on our muscles gave us an incredible degree of fine motor control. The effect on our mouths and vocal chords means humans can enunciate a number of difference phonemes while the best a chimp can do is howl. The effect on our hands means that humans can write, carve, draw, tie knots, light a fire, and type where the best a chimp can do is peel a banana.

Once again you're talking effect, not cause. On the other hand, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and vintage Johnny Weissmuller flicks notwithstanding, some primates are much better at swinging through the trees than we are. [Some humans in my experience don't vocalize much past howling either.]

 Quote:
After that, intelligence evolved largely as a compliment to dexterity.

A practical connection can be shown, but not an evolutionary one. If a person is born stupid, teaching him to do some things with his hands may make the most of such brainpower as he has, but I have not yet seen where it will have a genetic impact on the brain.

 Quote:
Being a genius is useless if you can't manifest any of your great ideas. Dolphins may have massive brains that enable them to communicate quite complexly with one another, but until they evolve opposable thumbs they aren't going to be building any underwater empires.

Nevertheless if dolphins were highly sentient (approaching or at human levels), they could strategize concerning and influence many things which impact their lives, such as the aforementioned tuna-dragnet peril, natural predators, ocean-water conditions, not to mention sophisticated communication with humans (not talking about Flipper here!) Take yourself with your present intelligence & consciousness and imagine yourself in a dolphin's body; you could do a very great deal.

But the overall, central issue remains not one of effect or application, but of origin. And Darwinian evolution simply doesn't fit Cindy's slipper there, despite logical slights-of-hand to make it seem that it does.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41398 - 08/03/10 10:07 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Three things

-When you argue against evolution, you are arguing science against a consensus of the worlds top anthropologists,zoologists, biologists, chemists and geologists. Really? I mean, I'm as much for challenging established ideas as anybody, but there comes a point where you are just pissing into the wind..and you crossed it some time back.

-You have raised enough (invalid)objections, but you have yet to give us any reason to believe in this magical intervention event you keep harping about. Hey I know, why don't you provide some evidence for your claim?

-Your post is literally filled with conclusions based on misunderstandings, and as no new knowledge about the universe has emerged since 1975 I won't bother pointing them all out, but this one bears mention:
 Quote:

But the overall, central issue remains not one of effect or application, but of origin. And Darwinian evolution simply doesn't fit Cindy's slipper there, despite logical slights-of-hand to make it seem that it does.

Evolutionary theory does not deal with origin whatsoever. You may be thinking of abiogenesis, which is a completely different theory.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#41400 - 08/03/10 10:33 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

Yes, understood, but still missing here are the "why" and the "how":

(1) Why did this particular mutation occur, since there were no external, natural-environmental forces causing it?


WHOA! Now I get where the crux of the misunderstanding is. Mutations are essentially random. They are not caused by environmental forces. Environmental forces are what select for or against certain traits that are the result of said mutations. Mutations occur independently of the environment, as a result of random chance. Natural selection and mutation are two separate forces.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
(2) How did such an intricate and multifaceted mutation (e.g. FOXP2 changing at all, and when it did, in such a way as to domino=down 55 genes & domino-up another 61). If this is what was required for our unique and high level of intelligence & consciousness, the odds against this being a purely accidental/random event would be prohibitive.


If you think an alteration of two amino acids is so drastic as to point to divine (diabolical?) intervention, I guess you're free to believe that. Far more dramatic mutations (frame shifts) have occurred in bacteria. The simple answer is that those genes were already linked to that protein in the first place, and various forms of that protein lead to various combinations of activation of the genes it affects. We got a lucky combination, but it's not as unlikely as you seem to think.

 Quote:
I'm not so sure about that claim, as humans can beefcake themselves up pretty well [and not necessarily through exercise-planning & diet-controlling, just a demanding outdoor lifestyle]. The orangutans at the S.F. Zoo, on the other hand, are perfectly happy to goof off all the time, as do the gorillas.


You're talking about muscle mass, which is a result of nurture, not nature. I'm talking about the neural inhibitions of muscles. Apples and oranges.

 Quote:
 Quote:
A relatively tiny chimp can bench-press a ton

Somehow I have a hard time believing this, though I do know that chimps are stronger than most people assume from their size.


Perhaps a wee bit hyperbolic, but you get my point.

 Quote:
 Quote:
These genes served, in part, to cause the brain to inhibit human strength.

This doesn't make sense to me either. It follows that a highly-intelligent human would be able to conceive other ways than brute strength to accomplish tasks, and thus would not need to maximize his muscles to survive, but that's not the same thing as genes causing automatic weakening.


As I explained, it wasn't weakening, per se. In life-threatening situations, we are still relatively strong. It was greater neural control over our muscles, not massive weakening of them.

 Quote:
I have seen this kind of Procrustean logic all too often in evolution-debtates, e.g. we needed this, so we got it/we didn't need this so we lost it, and evolution simply doesn't work bass-ackwards that way. This slinks in the direction of Lamarckism, which, while beloved by Anton LaVey, doesn't, I think, stand serious scientific test.


That wasn't what I was arguing at all. These just happened to be the results of the mutation, and as I explained before, mutations are random. They occur on their own. Mutations do not occur with some adaptive ends as their object. If they happen to have some adaptive ends, that's great. Oftentimes mutations can be quite disadvantageous.

 Quote:
 Quote:
But the neural inhibitions on our muscles gave us an incredible degree of fine motor control. The effect on our mouths and vocal chords means humans can enunciate a number of difference phonemes while the best a chimp can do is howl. The effect on our hands means that humans can write, carve, draw, tie knots, light a fire, and type where the best a chimp can do is peel a banana.

Once again you're talking effect, not cause.


I already explained that the mutation was the cause. Since I already named the cause, I'm elaborating on the affect.

 Quote:
 Quote:
After that, intelligence evolved largely as a compliment to dexterity.

A practical connection can be shown, but not an evolutionary one. If a person is born stupid, teaching him to do some things with his hands may make the most of such brainpower as he has, but I have not yet seen where it will have a genetic impact on the brain.


It wouldn't have a genetic impact on the brain. It just means that any mutation that causes an increase in intelligence would be advantageous to a dexterous creature, but they wouldn't be to a creature that wasn't. Once mutations occur that happen to increase intelligence, they would be selected for in a creature to whom they were advantageous, but not in a creature to whom they are not advantageous.

 Quote:
Take yourself with your present intelligence & consciousness and imagine yourself in a dolphin's body; you could do a very great deal.


I was just explaining why dolphins don't have our current cognitive capacity and you're acting like I claimed that they do?

Your whole argument seems to hinge on the assumption that mutations occur with some prime directive; that genes mutate themselves to suit their environment. They don't. Some mutations happen to help an organism. Some mutations cause death. Mutations are random. The natural selection for advantageous mutations (and against disadvantageous ones) is what drives evolution.


Edited by XiaoGui17 (08/03/10 10:37 PM)
Edit Reason: quotation box fail
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41404 - 08/04/10 12:46 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: XiaoGui17]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
Mutations are essentially random. They are not caused by environmental forces. Environmental forces are what select for or against certain traits that are the result of said mutations.

Correct except that extreme mutations sufficient to instantly create such a vast difference in a species are statistically impossible. Natural mutations are relatively minor, incidental, and sufficiently consistent with their species not to turn it immediately into something else. You cited your complex "dominos" of a single genetic mutation turning a previous species of primate into highly-intelligent, self-aware, opposing-thumb, talking, etc. mankind. The probability of all this happening simultaneously from one "key" gene accident, is nonexistent.

 Quote:
If you think an alteration of two amino acids is so drastic as to point to divine (diabolical?) intervention, I guess you're free to believe that.

If you think that a random alteration of two amino acids is capable of producing all the above mutations simultaneously [which would be necessary for the survival of the mutated being you claim], you're just as free to believe that.

 Quote:
You're talking about muscle mass, which is a result of nurture, not nature. I'm talking about the neural inhibitions of muscles. Apples and oranges.

Actually we were both talking about the muscular strength of various primate species, which you asserted was so substantially different as to constitute a key part of modern humanity's reliance upon intellect [instead]. This is false from a bodily-inherent standpoint. As noted, individual members of any primate species can choose to emphasize or deemphasize their physical development and reliance upon same.

 Quote:
Perhaps a wee bit hyperbolic, but you get my point.

No, your chimp-example failed to substantiate it.

 Quote:
It just means that any mutation that causes an increase in intelligence would be advantageous to a dexterous creature, but they wouldn't be to a creature that wasn't.

This once again does not support the appearance of the original intelligence-mutation. Incidentally many animals which possess or exceed various of the physical capabilities you cited simply and adequately use them at their present/lower level of intelligence. I had a pet raccoon named Jesus Christ back in my Church of Satan/Louisville days whose little black hands could and did open anything in the house. He got his name because that's what I said (!) everytime I came home and saw it ransacked. Jesus even took the tape reels out of my IBM Selectric [without damaging it].

 Quote:
Once mutations occur that happen to increase intelligence, they would be selected for in a creature to whom they were advantageous, but not in a creature to whom they are not advantageous.

Tautological.

 Quote:
I was just explaining why dolphins don't have our current cognitive capacity and you're acting like I claimed that they do?

No, I was pointing out the absurdity of your contention that dolphins' physical bodies prevent them from possessing human levels of intelligence and consciousness.

 Quote:
Your whole argument seems to hinge on the assumption that mutations occur with some prime directive; that genes mutate themselves to suit their environment.

Not at all. Darwinian natural selection operates to favor or disfavor mutations which have already occurred, but the natural environment does have an influence upon what mutations survive beyond a single incident in a single creature of a species. If a hawk were hatched without eyes, his natural environment [for which the rest of his body might be ideally functional: air, climate, trees, ground/air prey, etc.] would cut his career short before he could reproduce. End of environmentally-unsupported mutation.

You and I really don't have an issue with natural evolution per se, but we do have a fundamental difference where the "power and consequence" of a single mutation is concerned. You maintain something this complex can be a single, random accident [as it would need to be to survive the environmental forces arrayed against anything short of a "complete jump"]; I contend that it is so complex as to exceed the proverbial 100 monkeys on typewriters eventually producing the word-perfect Encyclopædia Brittanica.

If you are comfortable and reassured by your hypothesis, be my guest. The "random accident" doctrine is certainly in cultural vogue because anything else is assumed to commit the sins of religious mythology or science fiction. These do not lead to tenure.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41406 - 08/04/10 01:02 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
...extreme mutations sufficient to instantly create such a vast difference in a species are statistically impossible. Natural mutations are relatively minor, incidental, and sufficiently consistent with their species not to turn it immediately into something else.


While mutations may not be able instantly create a vast difference in a species, another seemingly inconsequential factor can. Namely, the experience of the mother

 Originally Posted By: Newsweek
Some water fleas sport a spiny helmet that deters predators; others, with identical DNA sequences, have bare heads. What differs between the two is not their genes but their mothers' experiences. If mom had a run-in with predators, her offspring have helmets, an effect one wag called "bite the mother, fight the daughter." If mom lived her life unthreatened, her offspring have no helmets. Same DNA, different traits. Somehow, the experience of the mother, not only her DNA sequences, has been transmitted to her offspring.


The water fleas that have the spiny helmets may not be a different species from their bareheaded counterparts but this is quite a big change that occurs practically instantaneously.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#41411 - 08/04/10 02:10 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Dan_Dread]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Correct except that extreme mutations sufficient to instantly create such a vast difference in a species are statistically impossible. Natural mutations are relatively minor, incidental, and sufficiently consistent with their species not to turn it immediately into something else. You cited your complex "dominos" of a single genetic mutation turning a previous species of primate into highly-intelligent, self-aware, opposing-thumb, talking, etc. mankind. The probability of all this happening simultaneously from one "key" gene accident, is nonexistent.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. The domino effect of the FOXP2 had an impact on several similar genes affecting dexterity: the nuance of neural control over muscles. This mutation in and of itself did nothing to make these creatures more intelligent or self-aware; that came later. It simply paved the way by creating an organism in which enhanced intelligence would be advantageous for survival.

 Quote:

If you think that a random alteration of two amino acids is capable of producing all the above mutations simultaneously [which would be necessary for the survival of the mutated being you claim], you're just as free to believe that.


I don't, but it's good to know I'm free to.

 Quote:
Actually we were both talking about the muscular strength of various primate species, which you asserted was so substantially different as to constitute a key part of modern humanity's reliance upon intellect [instead].


No, no, no. I was not asserting that we got so darn weak we had to rely on brains instead of brawn. I was asserting that we got such fine motor control that any increase in intelligence could be put to good use, thus setting the stage for future mutations enhancing intellect to be substantially advantageous and thus selected for more favorably than they would in less dexterous species.

JC the raccoon may indeed have great dexterity, as do a great many other animals. Parrots, for example, have enough motor control over their mouths to simulate human speech, even without lips. But not only do we have great dexterity, we also have a cranial capacity much greater than that of either a bird or a raccoon. The great features human beings have certainly aren't unique, we just got them all in the same package.

 Quote:
Once mutations occur that happen to increase intelligence, they would be selected for in a creature to whom they were advantageous, but not in a creature to whom they are not advantageous.

Tautological.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
We should only expect to see something get 'smarter' if the smarter ones are outperforming the less intelligent ones in a way that helps them survive.


I did have a point there, but we're off on a tangent of something else I wasn't asserting. See quote from Dan.

 Quote:
No, I was pointing out the absurdity of your contention that dolphins' physical bodies prevent them from possessing human levels of intelligence and consciousness.


Hang on a second. Dan Dread says that dolphins are very intelligent and you counter that they aren't at the human level. Now I say that they aren't as dexterous as humans (and thus unable to make the same use of their intelligence that we can) and you counter that they are as smart as us? I'm confused.


Edited by XiaoGui17 (08/04/10 02:15 AM)
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41416 - 08/04/10 03:23 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Quote:
(1) Why did this particular mutation occur, since there were no external, natural-environmental forces causing it? Darwinian evolutionary theory requires external selection in favor of immediately [as in being chased by saberteeth] advantageous differences, not long/slow capacities such as higher mental faculties.

It is fairly known there is a DNA/gene copy failure of 1/180000 (? not sure about the number). The body can defend itself against these "errors" by DNA-repairgenes. Now, sometimes these failures tend to pass unnoticed but have their effects on the body. This has 2 possible results: cancer or it functions as a normal cell without any consequences.
It is easy to imagine that during the conceiving of a new human a sperm with the mutation due to a gene-copy-failure in its genes (as an example) to have a bigger appendix.
While it is a trivial thing, it can have an influence on survival (be it positive or negative).

 Quote:
(2) How did such an intricate and multifaceted mutation (e.g. FOXP2 changing at all, and when it did, in such a way as to domino=down 55 genes & domino-up another 61). If this is what was required for our unique and high level of intelligence & consciousness, the odds against this being a purely accidental/random event would be prohibitive.

Our unique level of intelligence has partly to do with nutrition. Thanks to the discovery of fire the "homo"-species managed to cook its food and make otherwise toxic meat/plants harmless. This broaded our diet with a greater intake of vitamines, lipids,.. which on their turn had an influence on our bodily functions/well-being.

On another note; our intelligence and accomplishments are unique. But calling opposable thumbs a virtue and calling it a luck to make it possible to perform fine-tuned movements is quite a fallacy. It is thanks to our intelligence and fantasy we gathered in past millenia we managed to perform trivial fine-tuned movements. I mean, give a spoon to an ape and it will not know how to use it properly UNLESS it is being learned properly.



Edited by Dimitri (08/04/10 03:32 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#41419 - 08/04/10 03:55 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Our intelligence and "dexterity" go hand in hand. William H. Calvin wrote a nice book about it called "The Emergence of Intelligence" which proposes that the Ice Ages, or "climate change", and hunting techniques had a huge impact on our intelligence. I don't know how dated it is, being written in the 90ies, but I assume he wasn't that wrong back in the day.

Also evolution isn't always "improving" or at least improving as in how we see improval. The Kakapo parrot with its ridiculously complicated mating ritual or the Panda who's diet is 99% about bamboo aren't really hotshots when it comes to avoiding extinction. It doesn't take much to make them disappear. But such is evolution, that what is favorable keeps them reproducing. That what is unfavorable is selected against.

As humans, we have partly the genes of our fathers, partly of our mothers AND a couple of "mutations". These mutations don't always play much of a role unless some "pressure" of the outside happens and they give us a disadvantage or an edge. As such, any of us can be the next step of a branch. Of course, our current level of intelligence makes it possible to artificially interact. But put us back on the wild Savannah and you'll directly notice how those in a wheelchair will perform.

D.

Top
#41420 - 08/04/10 05:02 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: XiaoGui17]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
... I'm confused.

I'm not surprised, since you've now backtracked over, rearranged, and respun your arguments & examples to the point where my MEGO fuse has blown. So I will just toast your right to believe in whatever it is that you do believe in concerning evolution, intelligence, dolphins, and parrots.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41426 - 08/04/10 08:03 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Morgan]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
... I'm confused.

I'm not surprised, since you've now backtracked over, rearranged, and respun your arguments & examples to the point where my MEGO fuse has blown.


I wouldn't call clarification backtracking, but I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or I've failed to make myself clear.

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
So suck a dick.


Probably the best advice in the entire thread. Turns out, this would've been a much better investment of my time...
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41428 - 08/04/10 08:43 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: XiaoGui17]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
The main problem in this "debate" is that while some of us can be corrected and change our views should there be a logical reason or supporting evidence to do so, for others it might not be that simple.

As far as I can see it, if all evolution would be a natural process, things become very complicated for the ToS. It is pretty hard to keep such a religion intact should the building blocks turn out to be compromised or should Set not have known what he was talking about back in the day. As such, no matter what argument or evidence presented contra, any believer in the ToS memeplex can’t do else but vehemently deny it and thus distance themselves further and further from the scientific agreements. And such is the case it seems, the more science advanced during the last decades, the more stubbornly people seem to hold on to their old ideas. It is their right of course but this isn't about right any longer as it is about trying to keep alive a memeplex destined to go the way of the dodo.

D.

Top
#41450 - 08/04/10 08:29 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Diavolo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
As far as I can see it, if all evolution would be a natural process, things become very complicated for the ToS.

Not at all, because at the core of Setian philosophy is the phenomenon of isolate self consciousness per se, not the mechanisms of natural evolution which operate within the Objective Universe.

Evolutionary forces are of interest not as a creator of this metaphysical phenomenon, but rather, incidentally, as a reflection of its presence and effect upon not just the human physical organism but indeed this entire planetary biosphere. Reliance upon our consciousness and extremely-divergent intelligence has changed our physical species (as in medical, diet, physical programs or artificial assists). It has also intruded upon all other species and the natural environment.

Indeed a key issue has nothing to do with the presence or power of the Gift of Set a such, but how humanity has chosen to exercise it. Obviously most are not Setian Initiates. Humanity's removal of most of its natural predators, diseases, and other population-control mechanisms has led to runaway overpopulation, extermination and or enslavement of all other species, and inexorable poisoning of the biosphere. Is any of this the appropriate invocation of the divine powers of the Gift? No. Is it happening nevertheless, because of how noninitiate humanity abuses it? Yes. And so would it be better had the Gift never happened, and our primate predecessors just remained one more pre-"monolithic" type of ape? A case can be made for that, though just a too-late/if-only one, which is a futile exercise. My personal nightmare is that of Morbius in Forbidden Planet, whose own attempt to emulate the Krell unleashed this same evil. It may be that in the last analysis the "messiah" of humanity is not Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha, but rather:

 Originally Posted By: Donald Thomas, The Marquis de Sade
... From two narrowly avoided death sentences, from twenty-seven years in prisons and lunatic asylums, the Marquis de Sade emerged with his spirit unbroken, and with an appalling alternative philosophy of human conduct which he had written secretly in the long months and years of his confinement. In the new order of things there was to be no God, no morality, no affection, no hope - only the extinction of man in a final erotic and murderous frenzy. Murder, theft, rape, sodomy, and incest were to be the reasonable means to this end.

If all this had been the raving of a lunatic, there would have been no trial in 1956, because the books would have been too absurd to warrant a collected edition or an edition of any other kind. But Sade's interpretation fits with horrific aptness a world without a God and a universe which knows no higher laws than those of nature.

In the eighteenth century, of course, the heroes and heroines of his novels are frustrated in their larger designs. It is a matter of great regret to Juliette that she cannot destroy whole towns by bringing about an eruption of Vesuvius, and she kills a mere 1,500 people by poisoning a town water supply.

The twentieth century was uneasily aware, by 1956, that it had harnessed nuclear fission and bacteriology to provide for its own destruction on a scale undreamed of by Sade's heroes.

It was argued, of course, that his novels were only intended to show what must follow if mankind chose to reject the authority of God. Sade may have rejected it, but his obsession with Providence and blasphemy is a sound enough basis for believing that his greatest mania was religious rather than sexual. Whatever his intention, he was the one major figure of the past two centuries to think the unthinkable, and to record it in stories which have been regarded as unprintable during much of the time since they were written. Voltaire had shown that all was not for the best in the best of all possible worlds; Sade unveiled a universe dominated by evil and destruction, where the only consolation was a brutal, erotic prelude to the unlamented obliteration of the human race.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41452 - 08/04/10 09:41 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
Today's primates' ancestors split away from today's humanity's ancestors around 8-12 million years ago (depending on type of primate). The number of primate species and humans that didn't make the grade? MANY. They died off because they didn't keep up with the race, or because they were made extinct by natural enemies.

There are also rumours of another type of homo living alongside us some tens of thousands of years ago, and having similar, if not superior abilities to ours. Why would a superior species die off and we, the inferiors, flourish? The answer is surprisingly simple. We were more economical, and presented a more efficient model for replication and fitness.

Actually we wouldn't know the answer in a case that far back and based on considerable speculation as to such a being's actual constitution.

 Quote:
And that is, once again, my point: Evolution builds on small, incremental steps, from simple to complex. We, along with every other current species, have a similar level of complexity. We have evolved for the same length of time.

No disagreement here.

 Quote:
There are exceptions, of course, but there is nothing to suggest that a divine spark at any one point touched us. There is simply no proof for it.

Well, yes, there is, since we possess an unmatched and even substantially unapproached level of intelligence & consciousness, and no natural/evolutionary forces effect or affect this. To escape-clause that "anything can evolve into anything else over enough time" just begs the question; and you are still left with the vast gulf between humanity and anything else in this regard. The same natural/evolutionary forces that engendered these phenomena in humanity, if you wish to make that speculation, should have been at work in other Earth life-forms as well over the same time-span. It is not just our intelligence/consciousness that is significant, but its species-unqueness as well.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41455 - 08/05/10 12:05 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


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

Well, yes, there is, since we possess an unmatched and even substantially unapproached level of intelligence & consciousness, and no natural/evolutionary forces effect or affect this.

You know, just repeating the same things over and over doesn't make them true. Not even writing them in an ebook, then quoting yourself from that ebook, would help you to that effect.

Maybe if you stopped doing the rhetorical two-step long enough to offer up a bit of evidence in favour of your claims that a) humans are more conscious than other animals, b)the intelligence gap between humans and other great apes is so vast as to not be explainable by natural selection and c)an intelligent force intervened and somehow(?) caused humans to be special, you might be getting better responses.

As it is, you are coming across as just another nutter with extraordinary claims he can't back up.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#41456 - 08/05/10 04:59 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You are right of course when you look at consciousness as separate from our biology but the problem with this is that the dualist view is a "dated" view. The mind is the brain –there is evidence enough out there- and since the mind is the brain, it is also subject to evolution. Some apes, bottlenose dolphins and elephants have the capacity for self-awareness. Magpies might also posses it. Again, humans are not unique and the current "complexity" of what their brain is capable of is not, by definition, evidence of divine interference. And we're again to my claim that if the ToS does not deny evolution, it will become very complicated for them.

If the mind is the brain, Set's gift goes down the drain. ;\)

Your interpretation of the 2001 scene is yours of course but I see it as another metaphor, maybe slightly more accurate with what happens in that scene and afterwards.

One can see the monolith, being cast down from the heavens, as the Devil. His gift, as shown in 2001, is not consciousness, or the spark of intelligence, but Will to Power. As a result of this gift being spread amongst our ancestors, we start to fulfill our destiny as conquerors, excelling in all those fine and exquisite techniques for murder and mayhem until we are able to conquer that what is now beyond us; space.

D.

Top
#41458 - 08/05/10 07:11 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
As far as I can see it, if all evolution would be a natural process, things become very complicated for the ToS.

Not at all, because at the core of Setian philosophy is the phenomenon of isolate self consciousness per se, not the mechanisms of natural evolution which operate within the Objective Universe.


This is of major importance and this is where the ToS start to get problems. The dualistic view that the subjective universe (psyche or soul or whatever) is somehow distinct and separate from the objective universe (nature if you will). This is of course by todays standards a highly unscientific view but nevertheless the view that probably is most common in modern day western religion.

I’d say that not only does the "soul" depend on the body they are both one and the same. The names we give are there to distinct certain processes within the whole (and indeed this is also the case of man and what is not-man so to speak). There is no core self. It’s like when you peal an onion. You remove layer upon layer of what makes the onion but when you reach the core it is empty. Still it appears to be solid when viewed from the outside. The same is true with stones as well as any other material phenomena. We can reduce the building blocks into nothing - literally nothing in the material sense of the word (it is still energy). And so to with the "soul". The Self or soul is more to be viewed as an ever changing thing that we recognize only as it has happened when we have already seen the path it traveled on.

My view is that all is dependant on each other and the Self is ever changing and never still. And it is closely linked to everything else in the Universe. There is no separation there is only perception from within the system from those creatures that are able to reflect on what happens "outside of them".

Top
#41470 - 08/05/10 01:15 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Diavolo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
You are right of course when you look at consciousness as separate from our biology but the problem with this is that the dualist view is a "dated" view. The mind is the brain –there is evidence enough out there- and since the mind is the brain, it is also subject to evolution.

The mind is certainly not the brain, unless your definition of "mind" is limited to the brain's processing of stimulus/response and functional information. To that extent it can indeed be compared to an extremely advanced computer, but beyond all this is consciousness of self, which cannot be attributed to any such process [though "conscious" computers such as HAL have been a sci-fi darling].

The degree and absoluteness of the consciousness' reliance upon the physical brain are also fascinating, as in John Lilly's work with sensory deprivation and ESB (electrical stimulation of the brain) experimentation. We know that uninitiated minds rely heavily upon constant external input to maintain coherence; in Setian philosophy we liken this to "training wheels on a bicycle". Initiation consists in part of freeing the mind from this "default"-addiction to stimulus, which also limits it to functionality in the Objective Universe (from/to which are said stimulus/response).

OU science, which because of its self-imposed limitations must remain within and deny beyond the OU, is inapplicable here. "Someone," growls Mason Parrish in Altered States, "has to keep an eye on you two sorcerers!"

Can you choose, through laziness, fear, or inability, to limit your existence to that of OU stimulus/response and to "blot yourself out" at the moment of removal of these training-wheels, e.g. bodily cessation? Yes. Or:

 Originally Posted By: The Sage
O Her-Bak. O Egypt. You are the temple which the Neter of Neters inhabits. Awaken Him ... then let the temple fall crashing.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41472 - 08/05/10 01:34 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
But it is quite clear that a person’s consciousness can be reduced or even become non-existent because of injuries to the brain. If consciousness was isolate from our biology or could be trained to be why would it be so effected as to even “disappear” when a certain part of our body (the brain) gets injured?

I think you touch on this in your "black magic" essay but you do not give any answers.


Edited by TheInsane (08/05/10 01:35 PM)

Top
#41475 - 08/05/10 01:59 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: TheInsane]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
But it is quite clear that a person’s consciousness can be reduced...


I agree.

I would go so far as to say that what we refer to as "human consciousness" or "the gift of Set," is Conditional.

By "Conditional" I'm trying to say that our "human consciousness" comes into being, or rather we consciously assume we are human or become human under such Conditions where we are exposed to other humans at a critical age and state of mind.

I bring up the many cases of Feral Children as an example of when what physically is "human" [homo sapiens] has been raised by or exposed to animals during a certain age range and state of mind. Such "humans" are not human in mind or consciousness or behaviour. They appear to be very much like the animal kind that nurtured them. The gift of Set seems to be based on Conditions of who raises and Nurtured us. It's a cheap gift based on one man's perception and understanding of Human Consciousness... or lack of perspective and understanding.

Edit:

This goes the other way also. I've seen great apes such as Koko who were raised by humans. Such great apes end up exhibiting the level of human consciousness as that of a deaf human. With Koko she can use sign language, and so on. It seems as though a zoo trainer gave Koko the so called gift of Set.


Edited by Caladrius (08/05/10 02:06 PM)
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#41476 - 08/05/10 02:02 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: TheInsane]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
But it is quite clear that a person’s consciousness can be reduced or even become non-existent because of injuries to the brain. If consciousness was isolate from our biology or could be trained to be why would it be so effected as to even “disappear” when a certain part of our body (the brain) gets injured?

No, what is reduced by injury [or other sensory-deprivation] is what might be siplified as the "computer processing functions" of that part of the brain. This also affects both incoming and outgoing communications functions insofar as these are habitually OU functions (speech, writing, other sensory-signalling). None of these have anything to do with the ka or psyche, though an uninitiated one will find itself just as disoriented as Dr. Jessup's. [You get a taste of this whenever you fall asleep, your brain dials down its OU attention to alarm-clock sensitivity, and you go nuts. But you don't go away.]
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41477 - 08/05/10 02:15 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
No, what is reduced by injury [or other sensory-deprivation] is what might be siplified as the "computer processing functions" of that part of the brain. This also affects both incoming and outgoing communications functions insofar as these are habitually OU functions (speech, writing, other sensory-signalling). None of these have anything to do with the ka or psyche, though an uninitiated one will find itself just as disoriented as Dr. Jessup's. [You get a taste of this whenever you fall asleep, your brain dials down its OU attention to alarm-clock sensitivity, and you go nuts. But you don't go away.]


You claim that "isolate conciousness" is the Gift of Set and there are, as far as we know and can measure, cases where a person has lost their conciousness or personality or whatever you may call it due to physical injury. If I have understood the psyche in ToS terms it is that which is the "core you". Does this include a certain personality? And if this is not in any way sensory then what is it - dont you regard thinking as sensory?

What about those people who have lost their previous personality forever due to brain injury? Some have lost it alltogether (and thus often is said to not be alive even if their body functions). Others wake up and have a completely new personality.

Top
#41489 - 08/05/10 09:47 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: TheInsane]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
If I have understood the psyche in ToS terms it is that which is the "core you". Does this include a certain personality?

Sure: yours. If you happen to be a werewolf, there might be a slight complication here, however.

 Quote:
And if this is not in any way sensory then what is it - dont you regard thinking as sensory?

Ahem, Descartes? ... Well, you can think about all sorts of OU phenomena and how to Lego them, and that creates the casual illusion that you need Lego pieces in order to think. But the capacity and action of thinking itself is prior to how you may apply it, whether Lego-practically or imaginatively/creatively, leading ultimately to the creation of SU universes (what Nietzsche referred to as "horizon building").

So your ka is not a Lego-construct that you have to look at in the mirror to realize yourself. It is the thing that wishes to play Lego in the first place.

I am reminded of the student who, after listening to a lecture on Descartes, became more and more agitated until, at 3AM, he finally phoned the professor up at home and screamed, "I can't stand it - I've GOT to know! DO I EXIST?!" The prof yawned and said, "And who wants to know?"

Look, you can do two things with your ka: You can deny it, suppress it, burn it at the stake, flagellate it, sublimate it, or otherwise try to rid yourself of it like Anton LaVey's tussle with the dreaded Nocturnal Lurker. In that case when your training-wheels time is over, you'll wind up here, in Verse XIV, lines 49-84.

If you discover, unleash, and assume your godhood, your eternal future is this.

Your choice.

 Quote:
What about those people who have lost their previous personality forever due to brain injury? Some have lost it alltogether (and thus often is said to not be alive even if their body functions). Others wake up and have a completely new personality.

You're asking several different questions here, but the thread common to all of them is that one's consciousness of being (the ka) is prior to any constructs it has arranged, memorized, and accustomed itself to in the OU, which include all physical surroundings, im/expressions, and in some cases (such as Alzheimer's) memory. The ka may continue to indwell the body in any number of manifestations, such as an "OU-memoryless" state of instantaneous experience only. Or it may depart the shell, leaving it to metabolize [or be artificially metabolized by other humans]. each situation is unique, as you will also see for yourself when/as/if.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41492 - 08/05/10 10:58 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I think the word for repeatedly asserting unevidenced and unfounded claims ,ignoring all evidence and logic to the contrary, is preaching.

How long is this guy going to be allowed to preach this hocus pocus nonsense anyway? His celebrity cred must be running thin by now..honestly..

There is no difference between this and the good news of christ.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#41496 - 08/06/10 01:30 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
How long is this guy going to be allowed to preach this hocus pocus nonsense anyway?

No need to listen to it a moment more, Dan, because boy, have I got a special deal just for you! For only one Kellogg's Corn Flakes boxtop and a left-handed smoke changer, I will send you your very own, glow-in-the-dark, custom stamped out in cheap green plastic with the edges untrimmed, statuette of Set, mounted on a suction cup for the dashboard of your pickup truck. And that's not all: Just wind it up, and while it unwinds it will play a genuine ancient magical incantation guaranteed to double-whammy your consciousness, impress your friends, and get you laid. Step right up - but hurry: this is a limited-incarnation offer and supplies are going fast.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41498 - 08/06/10 01:52 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Dan_Dread]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
There is no difference between this and the good news of christ.


In all fairness, he's articulate, courteous, colorful, humorous, and he cites a lot of sources (even if he's citing himself). I'm not saying it isn't B.S., but it's some of the most finely dressed-up B.S. I've ever seen. It's all in the packaging.


Edited by XiaoGui17 (08/06/10 01:52 AM)
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41499 - 08/06/10 01:54 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: XiaoGui17]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Are you seriously saying you are fine with being fed bullshit as long as it is presented with the right garnish? You should be ashamed of yourself.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#41500 - 08/06/10 02:03 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
Are you seriously saying you are fine with being fed bullshit as long as it is presented with the right garnish? You should be ashamed of yourself.


*heavy sigh* I really hope you're being facetious. I know I was. I suppose I should lay off the sarcastic comments until people know me well enough to be able to tell when I'm being sarcastic. It's my curse; when I'm joking, people thing I'm serious, and when I'm serious, people think I'm joking.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41511 - 08/06/10 08:16 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

 Quote:
And if this is not in any way sensory then what is it - dont you regard thinking as sensory?

Ahem, Descartes? ... Well, you can think about all sorts of OU phenomena and how to Lego them, and that creates the casual illusion that you need Lego pieces in order to think. But the capacity and action of thinking itself is prior to how you may apply it, whether Lego-practically or imaginatively/creatively, leading ultimately to the creation of SU universes (what Nietzsche referred to as "horizon building").


This is obviously where "belief" sets in as there are no proof that the "ka", as you prefer to call it, pre-exists the lego sts. And I am familiar with Descartes but I also recognize him as one of the most negative influences on western philosophy ever with his descartian dualism which is horribly out of date today anyways.

In his theory even if there was no lego there would still be an "I". I however stand by my Nietzschean notion that we are ever changing and that everything depends on everything else. There is no core that exists solely by itself and we are not even a Self but rather a hierarchy of Selves and without things to interact with we wouldn’t exist either because "we are it". I find it interesting that you want to back up your descartianism by a reference to Nietzsche seeing as they were on opposite ends in regards to theories of the Self.

 Quote:

You're asking several different questions here, but the thread common to all of them is that one's consciousness of being (the ka) is prior to any constructs it has arranged, memorized, and accustomed itself to in the OU, which include all physical surroundings, im/expressions, and in some cases (such as Alzheimer's) memory. The ka may continue to indwell the body in any number of manifestations, such as an "OU-memoryless" state of instantaneous experience only. Or it may depart the shell, leaving it to metabolize [or be artificially metabolized by other humans]. each situation is unique, as you will also see for yourself when/as/if.


Basically you claim the "ka" can take any form in regards to how we perceive it and it can even leave the body. So what you say is that regardless of how it looks and regardless of scientific evidence, or anything else, there is still a ka even though there appears to be none (or in the extreme case it has left the body). This of course leaves us with the claim of the existence of a thing that is impossible to argue against since it is based almost on a form of circle reasoning. No matter what you have an answer for what has happened with the "ka" but never can we provide satisfiable evidence that this is the case except from theories.

Top
#41519 - 08/06/10 01:29 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: TheInsane]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
...never can we provide satisfiable evidence that this is the case except from theories.

The phenomenon of the isolate self consciousness is obviously extant and verifiable. It's why "you are you". You seem to be looking for "OU machinery to explain and define it", and conclude that if there isn't any, it defaults to an illusion, a "ghost in the machine". That's understandable, but only if you deny a priori anything beyond the OU.

What I am saying is that the existence of this phenomenon is significant precisely because it is not of the OU, and therefore is not subject to its laws. The Egyptians called it the ka (and indeed several other more particularlized names); later it has been called the psyche, the soul, etc.

The existence of this "thing" is of course the basis for all the "Devil", "downfall", and "original sin" myths of history, because it is this which sets us apart from the collective, unified OU (God, the gods, the neteru). [This is, as you know, why it has always struck me as so ironic, and not a little funny, that a forum of "Satanism & Satanists" should be so terrified of this principle.]

I am repeating myself [again] here, but it is in response to the same question over and over again on 600C. My answer remains the same: You can choose to regard this thing in yourself as a mere OU mechanism, in which case, like the Hotel California, you will become a citizen of, and never leave the City of Dreadful Night. You certainly have that right, and I am not here to "preach" you out of it. As Captain Willard said in Apocalypse Now, "Everyone gets everything he wants."

Or you can choose to adventure into this mystery of your self, apprehend it, and fully Become (Xeper) it. Which is for every being a unique experience, never a standardized one. [That's why we call the Temple of Set "just a toolbox".]

I don't get Brownie Points from Set for "converting" anyone, and the Temple of Set has never proselytized or evdevilized since its 1975 reemergence. What each resident of Plato's cave chooses to do is absolutely his own business, which is why it is so pointless for Dan Dread to throw his tantrums. He, like you and everyone else here, can do whatever he likes, for whatever reasons comfort him.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41521 - 08/06/10 01:50 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
Are you seriously saying you are fine with being fed bullshit as long as it is presented with the right garnish? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Bless my [imaginary] soul, are you seriously saying that the whole world doesn't float on bullshit, and that 600C isn't steaming with it as well?

Here comes yet another LBM guidebook from the infamous Temple of Set Reading List.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41522 - 08/06/10 02:10 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Yes, the world is indeed filled with bullshit. And it will continue to be as long as there are people like you to keep promoting it and people who are willing to believe it.

Luckily there are still people who see you and people like you for the charlatans that you are. And yes, a good number of those people can be found on this very site.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#41524 - 08/06/10 02:35 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
The phenomenon of the isolate self consciousness is obviously extant and verifiable. It's why "you are you". You seem to be looking for "OU machinery to explain and define it", and conclude that if there isn't any, it defaults to an illusion, a "ghost in the machine". That's understandable, but only if you deny a priori anything beyond the OU.


Yeah? Verifiable? Show me evidence that there is an isolate self consciousness that does not depend on the objective universe. Had such a thing existed I’m sure it would have made headlines all over the world. There is no such validation.

And we've been through this "you are you" thing before. There is nothing that suggests that there is a core Self. As I’ve said before I believe that the Self, metaphorically, is like a wave. It appears to be solid and one but in reality the water it consists of and the energy that produces the wave is continuously changing. So while we can follow one wave from its beginning to its end what constitutes its appearance has changed a million times between it "birth" and its "death". Yes, this can’t be proven for a fact either but modern science tends to agree with this. I don’t claim it to be verifiable like you try to claim that the SU is isolate from the OU and not subject to its so called laws.

Your view on the universe seems to be hopelessly stuck in the classic notion that the OU is like a machine while all evidence today would rather suggest that it is organic or that living beings are autopoietic.

 Quote:
What I am saying is that the existence of this phenomenon is significant precisely because it is not of the OU, and therefore is not subject to its laws. The Egyptians called it the ka (and indeed several other more particularlized names); later it has been called the psyche, the soul, etc.


Now granted the term "law of nature" isn't all that clear and the so called laws seem to change depending on how we understand them but there is no evidence of any kind that the human consciousness is not of the objective universe or not subject to its laws. That is unless you definition of nature is everything non-human. But then again you are stuck in the notion of the OU as a machine or as determined while you believe humans to have free will (neither of which are verifiable). Both notion are not only considered of the old school of physics but it is also the classical Christian view (except that they have a problem with Gods plan contra the free will of humans).

To me the circle reasoning does not fit in well with otherwise thought through opinions. Basically you say that the ka has a certain personality, the personality of the individual. But it has different manifestations (was that your way of explaining changed personality in regards to brain injury?) and when the personality is all gone you can always explain it with “it [the ka] may depart the shell, leaving it to metabolize”. So basically without providing evidence you have a nice little circle here that explains everything but proves nothing.


Edited by TheInsane (08/06/10 02:40 PM)

Top
#41527 - 08/06/10 03:10 PM Remain faithful to the earth! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
If I may quote an earlier post by Dr Aquino:

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
As L-fields are distinct from the physical body, T-fields are also superior to and separate from the physical machinery they manipulate and use. Here we are talking the basis for out-of-body consciousness, persistence of the psyche after physical death...

Here is the crux of this kind of metaphysical hypothesis - the possibility of survival of the ka/psyche/soul after brain death. Herein lies the raison d'être for much of this kind of belief, which can certainly be comforting for any who are able and willing to believe. The idea that our three score and ten years as a mechanical meat machine is 1) somehow not enough (or at least depressing and somehow a limited worldview), and 2) not all there actually is (due to some kind of afterlife).

Let's see what Mad Freddy had to say on this issue:

 Originally Posted By: Thus Spoke Zarathutra
I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! They are poisoners, whether they know it or not.

They are despisers of life, dying off and self-poisoned, of whom the earth is weary: so let them fade away!

Given the discussions on various threads concerning the ONA and its view of "mundanes", the word 'mundane' is actually derived from the Latin 'mundus' meaning 'world'. Another definition of 'mundane' (from Google's dictionary) is "Of this earthly world rather than a heavenly or spiritual one." Given this basis for the concept of the mundane, it would be at odds with Nietzsche's philosophical basis to "remain true to the earth" to either use the term "mundane" in a pejorative manner (as the ONA does), or to offer the comforting belief of consciousness continuing outside the physical body (as many forms of theism do).

Furthermore, here is another quote by Nietzsche on the "soul":

 Originally Posted By: Thus Spoke Zarathutra
“Body am I and soul” – so speaks a child. And why should one not speak like children?

But the awakened, the knowing one says: body am I through and through, and nothing besides; and soul is just a word for something on the body.

Nietzsche, unlike many other thinkers, does not accept metaphysical materialism or physicalism as propositional or dogmatic truth. Rather, it's more of a throught experiment and test of character as to whether one can dispense with the metaphysical notions of a soul and life after death, and still live a fulfilling life. (Nietzsche's 'eternal recurrence' was also meant in much the same way - as a thought experiment and test of character rather than literal dogma.)

This also reverses the views of various mystics that perceiving oneself as a spiritual being is more 'evolved' or 'mature' than viewing oneself as purely physical and fleshly (carnal). With Nietzsche, as with LaVeyan Satanism, it's the other way around. Dispelling with spiritual pipe dreams, hypocritical self-deceit and false hopes is the more rational and mature option, embracing one's vital existence as a human animal.

Meq

Top
#41528 - 08/06/10 04:02 PM Re: Remain faithful to the earth! [Re: Meq]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
I agree with you Meq but then again I am very much influenced by Nietzsche. And you're right about the eternal recurrence as a hypothetical though. It is most often interpreted as a thought experiment rather than an actual attempt of describing the world. Your attitude should be to affirm everything and hold no regrets. if someone asked you if you would be willing to live through it all again (good and bad and everything in between) you should answer with a proud "Yes!". This being said I dont think Nietzsche ever denies that the eternal recurrence is in fact an objective reality. However that is not themost important point.

Another interesting thing is the concept of "will to power" and how Nietzsche in general spoke bad about metaphysics. Still his thoughts on "will to power" sometimes come very close to a Nietzschean metaphysical theory. Such an interesting philosopher though and probably the man who single handedly had most influence on my philosophical development.

Top
#41529 - 08/06/10 04:16 PM Re: Remain faithful to the earth! [Re: Meq]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Meq
Given the discussions on various threads concerning the ONA and its view of "mundanes", the word 'mundane' is actually derived from the Latin 'mundus' meaning 'world'. Another definition of 'mundane' (from Google's dictionary) is "Of this earthly world rather than a heavenly or spiritual one." Given this basis for the concept of the mundane, it would be at odds with Nietzsche's philosophical basis to "remain true to the earth" to either use the term "mundane" in a pejorative manner (as the ONA does), or to offer the comforting belief of consciousness continuing outside the physical body (as many forms of theism do).


I disagree. I think this has been debated before but to Nietzsche language wasn't Euclidean; meaning it having a fixed and static value. In being such, anyone can define anything as he sees fit. Not saying it doesn't complicate things but it certainly is not at odds with Nietzsche.

D.

Top
#41530 - 08/06/10 07:10 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Anonymous]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
As I have not sought to dissuade any here who wish to enter the City of Dreadful Night #XIV 49-84, I fail to see why they should be both so emotionally livid and so adamant that everyone else must accompany them there too.

Back in the 1980s I was once asked if I saw myself as the real Damien Thorn. I said, "Every now and then, but unfortunately not most of the time."

600Cers are all individuals too. Just be whatever you want.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41531 - 08/06/10 07:55 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
Aquino, have you ever felt that weird feeling that you're not welcomed somewhere; or that you have over stayed your welcome lol?

Seems as thoe your trip down memory lane here has become you just lingering... like a fart that hovers in a warm room, that just won't go away. Is all this animosity worth the "nostalgia?"

I still think you are here trolling and fishing for the awakened 600 clubers. Even your 5 members over at religious forums admit they have no idea why you are in here chillin with Satanists.

You also seem wishy-washy in your feeling with the 600 club. You tell your "son in law" this forum is not Setian calibre, then you say this is the greatest forum full of wonderful people in other thread here, and then you go off subtly attacking the 600 club, 600 clubers, satanatheists like you are here... with your annoying smiley faces.

So tell us again about 1975 and Set... I can never get enough of it. Kori is attacking you over at religious forums by the way. She brought up a great point about how your a Crowley fanboy who needed to make believe that your Toser Organization was the fulfillment of prophesies in the Book of the Law to look legit to your followers... just FYI. Your followers there seem too retarded to retort to the argument brought up.


Edited by Caladrius (08/06/10 07:58 PM)
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#41536 - 08/06/10 08:21 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Caladrius]
Oxus Online
member


Registered: 04/15/10
Posts: 509
A single remark is hardly an attack;
 Quote:
Kori Houghton
It's a great parody of rituals in the style of the Aleister Crowley fan clubs, including the OTO and the Temple of Set. I heart the hilarious barbarous names and incantations. I swear the Harvard Lampoon people are logging in as Blackwood so damn funny!
I don't think TOS members venture outside of the Setian DIR forum, so no one would be aware of her post . . . or care for that matter.

I believe Dr. Aquino has stated many times his agenda for being here. Trolling or recruitment was never mentioned.

Top
#41537 - 08/06/10 08:28 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Oxus]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
 Originally Posted By: Oxus
A single remark is hardly an attack;
 Quote:
Kori Houghton
It's a great parody of rituals in the style of the Aleister Crowley fan clubs, including the OTO and the Temple of Set. I heart the hilarious barbarous names and incantations. I swear the Harvard Lampoon people are logging in as Blackwood so damn funny!
I don't think TOS members venture outside of the Setian DIR forum, so no one would be aware of her post . . . or care for that matter.

I believe Dr. Aquino has stated many times his agenda for being here. Trolling or recruitment was never mentioned.


The debate in question isn't in the Setian DIR:

 Quote:
Kori said:

The same thing that Aquino meant. You cannot be more of a fan group than one that bases its very existence on the fulfillment of a prophecy.

In my view, any group that was formed on the basis of a belief that its formation fulfills the AL cypher jumps to the head of the fan club line.

The Temple of Set isn't the only one at the top of the fanclub heap, wasn't the first to get there, and won't be the last. But the connection exists between Thelema and the Temple of Set. Separating the TOS from Thelema would be about as possible as getting a divorce from your biological parents. You might get some kind of severance of a legal connection, but the biological origin is not a matter of law. Aquino received the revealed word of Set that he is the magic(k)al heir of Crowley: Wild Card Second Beast, Son of Great Wild Beast, and all that. Maybe the Temple feels that the game is over, so the Wild Card goes back in the box with the rest of the deck?


Source



"Attack" may have been the wrong word to use \:\)
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#41539 - 08/06/10 09:19 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Caladrius]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Caladrius
Aquino, have you ever felt that weird feeling that you're not welcomed somewhere; or that you have over stayed your welcome lol?

Seems as thoe your trip down memory lane here has become you just lingering... like a fart that hovers in a warm room, that just won't go away. Is all this animosity worth the "nostalgia?"

Actually I have encountered only a very few rude individuals here, which to me just indicates their own insecurity and ill-manners. If they wish me gone, I rather think it's because they don't like being seen, and discounted, for what they really are.

 Quote:
I still think you are here trolling and fishing for the awakened 600 clubers. Even your 5 members over at religious forums admit they have no idea why you are in here chillin with Satanists.

Cite any post of mine in which I have solicited anyone for anything, or asked anyone to "follow" me or my ideas. You cannot, because I haven't and don't.

I know nothing about "religious forums", and I have never sought other Setians' approval or even interest for my visiting this 600C one. Indeed most Setians usually dismiss "Satanism" as an obsolete, primitive relic of the 1960s, but they also know that I have an extensive personal experience with and yes: somewhat sentimental & nostalgic affection for it. I would like to see its legacy an accurate, sincere, and positive one. The 600C impressed me in this regard, and for the most part still does.

 Quote:
You also seem wishy-washy in your feeling with the 600 club. You tell your "son in law" this forum is not Setian calibre, then you say this is the greatest forum full of wonderful people in other thread here, and then you go off subtly attacking the 600 club, 600 clubers, satanatheists like you are here... with your annoying smiley faces.

Of course the 600C is not a Setian forum, but as a Satanist forum it is as as good as I have regularly acknowledged it to be, and my Setian correspondent (who is not "my son in law") understands that too. As for "smiley faces", if these distress you so much, I believe there's a "preferences" setting here where you can prevent yourself from seeing not just them, but my annoying posts entirely on your screen. Then you won't have to worry about anything I say ever again.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41540 - 08/06/10 09:29 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Caladrius]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Caladrius
Aquino, have you ever felt that weird feeling that you're not welcomed somewhere; or that you have over stayed your welcome lol?


For the record, you're not speaking for me (not that I carry any weight here to speak of).

Personally, I enjoy Dr Aquino's perspectives and commentaries even if I don't always agree with them. Certainly some here, myself included at times, could take a lesson in humility from the way he comports himself, often in the face of outright rudeness.

I don't think Dr. Aquino's religious views were a secret when he chose to come here and he doesn't mince words about them now. I think the semi frequent personal attacks against him are often unwarranted and always pointless. I think, in fact, that his candor is admirable as he's not pretending to be something he isn't just to fit in.

If you don't find his nostalgia/perspectives on the C/S or the ToS valuable, then perhaps you could find his political and/or military perspectives in some way elucidating? I don't think we have many other high ranking military officers with PHD's willing to offer us insight in threads that have nothing to do with religion. Dr. Aquino's life experience and personal accomplishments are such that I believe he's earned a certain degree of respect and his 'blue' status here is an indicator that the powers that be at the 600 Club are in agreement with the sentiment.

In summary, as is the case with my post, your comments added nothing to the discussion and this is not the first time you've tried to bait/insult Dr Aquino in the middle of a thread. It's tiresome and if anyone is trolling it's you, as Aquino has contributed multiple times to this topic (and didn't once mention you).

Just my 2 pennies.

[/soapbox]
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#41541 - 08/06/10 09:42 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Caladrius]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Caladrius
"Attack" may have been the wrong word to use \:\)

And this is supposed to bother me or the Temple of Set because ..?

All sorts of people have been criticizing the Temple, various Setians, and/or myself for the past 35 years. Sometimes for being both not enough of or too much of the same thing simultaneously. I myself have been characterized as way too stupid or far too malevolently-intelligent to be authentic. In this I will merely defer to a gentleman who, at the height of the Civil War, remarked:

 Originally Posted By: Abraham Lincoln
If I were to try to read, much less answer all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how - the very best I can, and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41542 - 08/06/10 10:00 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: Caladrius
"Attack" may have been the wrong word to use \:\)

And this is supposed to bother me or the Temple of Set because ..?



The implications it would seem is the essence, I believe. If you read Kori's statement of how you pranced around claiming your Temple of Set is the the fulfillment of gibberish in Crowley's Book of The Law and Thelema.

With a little googling one can figure our Crowley borrowed the concept of "Thelema," "the Abby of Thelema," and "Do What Thou Wilt," from the ideas Sir Dashwood used; who got his ideas from Francois Rabelais:

 Quote:


François Rabelais was a Franciscan and later a Benedictine monk of the 16th century. Eventually he left the monastery to study medicine, and moved to the French city of Lyon in 1532. It was there that he wrote Gargantua and Pantagruel, a connected series of books. They tell the story of two giants—a father (Gargantua) and his son (Pantagruel) and their adventures—written in an amusing, extravagant, and satirical vein.

[...]

It is in the first book (ch. 52-57) that Rabelais writes of this Abbey of Thélème, built by the giant Gargantua.

Source



It seems as though your idea/concept of Set and the ideas/concepts that became your Temple of Set memeplex has its Roots not in ancient Egypt, but in a work of Fiction written by a Catholic Monk? Your infernal mandate of being the legit Satanism and true pre-1975 Church of Satan originates from a work of Fiction via Creepy Crowley...


Edited by Caladrius (08/06/10 10:02 PM)
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#41545 - 08/06/10 11:43 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Caladrius]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Caladrius
It seems as though your idea/concept of Set and the ideas/concepts that became your Temple of Set memeplex has its Roots not in ancient Egypt, but in a work of Fiction written by a Catholic Monk? Your infernal mandate of being the legit Satanism and true pre-1975 Church of Satan originates from a work of Fiction via Creepy Crowley...

Omigosh, you've actually exposed a connection between the Book of Coming Forth by Night and the Book of the Law; and here I thought this was the Temple of Set's deep, dark secret! But - oops, I must have been so careless including Appendices #3 & #5 [and Category #9 of Appendix #14] in The Temple of Set.

Aleister Crowley made no secret of his familiarity with Rabelais' work, although anyone comparing them will see the marked distinctions between their ideas and attitudes. The same could be said of Crowley's A.'.A.'., which was a variation of the G.'.D.'. in which AC was originally initiated, which was a variation of the S.R.I.A. and so on. If this really interests you, you can follow Aleister all the way back to ancient Egypt in Across the Gulf.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41546 - 08/06/10 11:45 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Caladrius]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Who cares.
This has gone way beyond Atheism into attacks on common sense, science, people, and everything in between.

If Aquino wants to believe that Set is the be all end all, fine.
If you want to believe the ONA is the be all end all, fine.
If others want to believe that both of you are off the deep end, that's fine too.

You will never agree with Aquino and he will never agree with you. Bringing outside forum bs into this forum serves no one because no one cares about outside bs. Just like how most people here really don't give a shit about MCOS, and would wish that shit was never brought here as well.

As for where his group took inspiration from, every group took inspiration from the ones that came before them. It's nothing new.


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



Top
#41548 - 08/07/10 12:06 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Morgan]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Who cares.

Well, exposés like this are profoundly shocking. I mean, I just Googled "600 Club" and got 46,800,000 hits, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this forum is an unoriginal, inauthentic, and deceitful imitation of a perfectly respectable baseball stadium club in Fresno. And here I thought all this time my postings were eventually going to get me complimentary Grizzlies tickets ... shucks.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41549 - 08/07/10 01:02 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino


If this really interests you, you can follow Aleister all the way back to ancient Egypt in Across the Gulf.


Quite interested now. What the hell was I reading Aquino? A story affiliated with the O.T.O.?

Don't you think that if Crowley - or anybody - had some real connection to Ancient Egypt that academicians, archaeologists, and such would have been all over his ass?

I was a member of A.M.O.R.C. during my membership I correspond a lot with the Grand Lodge asking questions. One thing I really like about them is that they actually take the time to personally respond and honestly answer your questions. Most of the time I asked about their supposed "ancient Egyptian" connection.

I had sent them a small pile of research papers about their actual history, and rather than deny, they confirmed it and provided me with a little more information.

The Rosicrucian Society In England [SRIA], the AMORC, the Traditional Martinist Orders, the pre-Crowley OTO [aka Academia Masonica], the degrees of the Royal Order of Scotland, and the Rosicrucian degrees of the pre-Albert Pike Ancient & Accepted Rite, and the Golden Dawn all were direct or indirect offspring of the Ancient and Primitive Rite of Memphis & Mizraim [RMM].

There was a time when the RMM was a "regular" Masonic Rite, but they started letting in women and the whole rite was rejected as being irregular. In it's irregular state John Yarker bought the charter to the RMM and continued it as a clandestined organization, which would later spawn the above mentioned organizations.

Craft Masonry - which consists of Entered Apprentice; Fellow Craft; and Master Mason Degrees [plus the Holy Royal Arch Degree according to the United Grand Lodge of England] dates back no further then 1717AD.

Of Craft Masonry only the first and second degree existed between 1717-1723. Only after 1723 did the 3rd degree [Master Mason] appear; the Royal Arch degree being created later.

These original two degrees in those times were emphatically Christian. It wasn't until many years later that the UGLE decided to tone down on the Christian rhetoric.

The original two degrees [EA & FC] existed before France sacked Egypt which was a time before Europe had rediscovered ancient Egypt. The Rosetta Stone was no discovered until the late mid 1700's so those first two degrees of Freemasonry were NOT Egyptian in any way.

It wasn't until France re-discovered the ancient Pyramids that an Egyptian fad swept across Europe, which was around the time when new degrees and rites associated with Freemasonry began cropping up. These Egyptian-esque degrees and rites do not have any real connection to the civilization of Ancient Egypt. They are revivalist degrees and rites INSPIRED by the new [re]discovery of the Ancient Egyptian Civilization.

Crowley was an Irregular Mason anyways. The UGLE did not recognize him as a regular Mason. He got his 33 "Scottish Rite" degrees from an irregular and clandestined body in Mexico of all places. Anybody can find this information with google.

Neither the pre-Crowley OTO or the post-Crowley OTO has any real connection to Ancient Egypt.

You trace your roots through Crowley [an irregular Mason], through the OTO [born from an irregular Masonic body], to the Ancient and Primitive Rite of Memphis & Mizraim [an irregular Masonic Rite], to the Egyptian revivalist crazy in Europe?

Either way you run Aquino - Francois and his fiction novel; or Egyptian Revivalism - you still meet a dead end with sufficient research. Anybody willing to write the GL of AMORC or do real research about Freemasonry will get the same resulting information here. Only the ignorant will read your OTO citation and believe your BS.

The only real person in history to have a believable connection to Ancient Egypt is Dhu'l Nun Al-Mizra: the father of Sufism. Even that is questionable.


Edited by Caladrius (08/07/10 01:14 AM)
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#41552 - 08/07/10 03:12 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

Actually I have encountered only a very few rude individuals here, which to me just indicates their own insecurity and ill-manners. If they wish me gone, I rather think it's because they don't like being seen, and discounted, for what they really are.


I would like to agree with this. Me and Dr. Aquino do not agree on many things but I always enjoy a good debate and I think its sad when it has come down to the level it has come down to at certain times here. Its a good thing to debate and to learn from others that you do not actually have to agree with. You will grow in yourself.

There are of course a few times where you notice that someone is incapable of debate or that a persons attiude is so bad you cant discuss with him. On the 600 Club I havent seen that from Dr. Aquino yet (even though I can see why some get annoyed with all the references to the e-books - but then again they should probably read them ince they answer the questions they write to Dr. Aquino on the boards).

Top
#41553 - 08/07/10 06:36 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: TheInsane]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I think this debate is amusing indeed and the fact that Aquino and I have opposite opinions on certain subjects doesn't bother me at all. I don't think I'll ever convince him he's wrong and he'll never convince he's right. To make sure, I of course draw a little circle of protection around my chair each time I reply to him. One can never be careful enough.

What impresses me most about him is that his manner of debate is almost like a soldier on the battlefield; quick-stepping through the minefield, dodging bullets and each time finding a safe cover to return fire. It is annoying for the "enemy" but it sure is a remarkable technique. ;\)

D.

Top
#41561 - 08/07/10 12:48 PM Re: Remain faithful to the earth! [Re: TheInsane]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
Another interesting thing is the concept of "will to power" and how Nietzsche in general spoke bad about metaphysics. Still his thoughts on "will to power" sometimes come very close to a Nietzschean metaphysical theory. Such an interesting philosopher though and probably the man who single handedly had most influence on my philosophical development.


I generally stay as far as possible from metaphysics, unless it is usable as an analogy but the subject of Will to Power is borderlining metaphysics indeed and still I think Nietzsche was on to something. It is a shame his ideas about it are so fragmented and he didn't have the time to work them out.

I am getting more and more convinced that the main drive of everything living is not survival and/or reproduction but domination and that Nietzsche's Will to Power was trying to define this very idea. As such, evolution is not a story of survival but one of dominion and survival and reproduction are merely side-effects of this.

Of course it is hard to find evidence for, besides observations which may or may not be entirely subjective, and the idea probably won't pass any bullshit detector until then. And still, I think there might be something to it.

However an innate "WtP" might be as hard to prove as a "soul" or separate "self".

D.

Top
#41562 - 08/07/10 01:57 PM 42 ! [Re: Diavolo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Quote:
I am getting more and more convinced that the main drive of everything living is not survival and/or reproduction but domination and that Nietzsche's Will to Power was trying to define this very idea. As such, evolution is not a story of survival but one of dominion and survival and reproduction are merely side-effects of this.

You have a point here, it is the same sentiment I had upon reading WtP. The mere idea it had formed, from what I gathered, was more about finding out of the meaning of life. Which the title might be a slight hint at.

The quest for the meaning of life can be an underlying factor for people to indulge in different sciences or metaphysics. That certain emotion and feeling for belonging which feeds woo-ish ideas and actions (and sometimes plain stupidity).



Edited by Dimitri (08/07/10 02:00 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#41563 - 08/07/10 02:58 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Caladrius]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Caladrius
What the hell was I reading Aquino? A story affiliated with the O.T.O.?

Across the Gulf has nothing to do with the O.T.O. It is Crowley's account of a previous incarnation in ancient Egypt on the occasion of the transition of the Æon of Isis into that of Osiris.

 Quote:
Don't you think that if Crowley - or anybody - had some real connection to Ancient Egypt that academicians, archaeologists, and such would have been all over his ass?

Well, AC generally liked having people all over his ass, but academically/archæologically I don't think anyone much bothered.

 Quote:
I was a member of A.M.O.R.C. during my membership I correspond a lot with the Grand Lodge asking questions. One thing I really like about them is that they actually take the time to personally respond and honestly answer your questions. Most of the time I asked about their supposed "ancient Egyptian" connection.

I had sent them a small pile of research papers about their actual history, and rather than deny, they confirmed it and provided me with a little more information.

AMORC is a nice, harmless, and stimulating organization, with a really beautiful Park down here in San Jose. They have an excellent Egyptian Museum and an impressive library which is open to the public. Much of their "Rosicrucian lineage" is imaginary, but as long as everyone knows this and appreciates it for its symbolic purpose, so what?

Setian initiation is demanding and dangerous, as we are going right to the nucleus of the soul and then exploding it outward against the [objective] universe. The AMORC, and RHP initiation generally, embraces the universe and seeks to dissolve the soul into it harmoniously.

 Quote:
The Rosicrucian Society In England [SRIA], the AMORC, the Traditional Martinist Orders, the pre-Crowley OTO [aka Academia Masonica], the degrees of the Royal Order of Scotland, and the Rosicrucian degrees of the pre-Albert Pike Ancient & Accepted Rite, and the Golden Dawn all were direct or indirect offspring of the Ancient and Primitive Rite of Memphis & Mizraim [RMM] ... These original two degrees in those times were emphatically Christian. It wasn't until many years later that the UGLE decided to tone down on the Christian rhetoric.

There were many interconnections among/between these occult societies [and others], and you're entering serious MEGO territory if you try to sort it all out. There is a pretty good & basic SRIA summary in Wiki for the casually-curious.

As for the O.T.O., while it might formally date from Theodor Reuss' 1917 Manifesto, German "occult Templarism" extends murkily back several centuries, and not just through Freemasonry (though FM would create its own Knights Templar 33° [my maternal grandfather was one, and I still have his very ornate sword]).

I was a friend of Grady McMurtry of the "Caliphate" O.T.O., and still am with several of its other sages such as Bill Heidrick and James Wasserman. I think probably the most voracious O.T.O historian is my Swiss friend Peter-R Koenig, who has published several extensive books in this area.

 Quote:
... These Egyptian-esque degrees and rites do not have any real connection to the civilization of Ancient Egypt. They are revivalist degrees and rites INSPIRED by the new [re]discovery of the Ancient Egyptian Civilization.

No disagreement here. FM has always had a coquettish relationship with Egypt, since ancient Egypt is really not compatible with Judæo/Christianity [except insofar as their lore is a degenerate corruption of its]. I think most would agree that the original Golden Dawn (Westcott/Woodman/Mathers) was the first major departure in this regard.

 Quote:
You trace your roots through Crowley [an irregular Mason], through the OTO [born from an irregular Masonic body], to the Ancient and Primitive Rite of Memphis & Mizraim [an irregular Masonic Rite], to the Egyptian revivalist crazy in Europe?

No, the Temple of Set has no connection with the O.T.O. except a mutually-friendly one. Grady and I were introduced by Francis Regardie, who despite grumping at Anton LaVey for his blasphemous appropriation (!) of Crowley's Equinox Keys, was fascinated by the Book of Coming Forth by Night. Although both my grandfathers were Masons, I am not.

 Quote:
Either way you run Aquino - Francois and his fiction novel; or Egyptian Revivalism - you still meet a dead end with sufficient research.

I'm not running in either direction. The authority of the Temple of Set comes from Set directly and personally, in the Book of Coming Forth by Night.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41564 - 08/07/10 03:33 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
The authority of the Temple of Set comes from Set directly and personally, in the Book of Coming Forth by Night.


Prove it.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#41566 - 08/07/10 03:45 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: Caladrius
What the hell was I reading Aquino? A story affiliated with the O.T.O.?

Across the Gulf... It is Crowley's account of a previous incarnation in ancient Egypt on the occasion of the transition of the Æon of Isis into that of Osiris.

[...]

The authority of the Temple of Set comes from Set directly and personally, in the Book of Coming Forth by Night.


I see. Your attempt at bringing up weak historical connections have burned, so now you fall back on insane shenanigans such as Crowley was the incarnation of an Ancient Egyptian and that some make believe creature gave you the authority to claim to be the true Satanism and to be the genuine pre-1975 Church of Satan?

You have the exact same irresponsible mentality as Blackwood.

I asked Blackwood from where he gets his authority and claim to be the leader of theistic Satanism and he tells me it is directly from Satan himself, and he points fingers at you to try and use your name to some how legitimize his organization.

I ask you the same, and you do the same as he. You tell me it comes directly from Set, and you point fingers at Crowley.

Both you and Blackwood are despicable and irresponsible people. At least Anton LaVey had the responsible nature to out right claim that he himself codified Satanism.

If I asked you if you actually recognize Blackwood and his claims that you somehow back up and recognize him and his Temples of Satan - as the true and real Satanism, what would you tell me?

If we raised Crowley from the dead and asked him if he knew you and recognized your organization as the true and genuine prophetic materialization of his prophesy what would he say?

You play this age old Right Hand game of prophesy fulfillment, claiming telepathic connection with some God who somehow gives you some authority or mandate. And you claim yourself and your Toser organization to be "Left Hand." People like you are called Snake Oil Salesmen and Charlatans.

LaVey didn't give you Satanism or the C/S. So you just make up an imaginary friend to give it too you. It's all good though you see... you're good at your BS game. It's your ignorant followers that I ultimately pity.


Edited by Caladrius (08/07/10 03:53 PM)
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#41568 - 08/07/10 05:03 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
 Quote:
The authority of the Temple of Set comes from Set directly and personally, in the Book of Coming Forth by Night.

Prove it.

I've been doing that for the past 35 years.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41570 - 08/07/10 05:10 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Show me one piece of valid scientific evidence for the existence of Set. As a wise man once said; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Sorry, but personal testimony does not qualify.

So far all it seems you have been doing for the past 35 years is holding a petty grudge.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#41571 - 08/07/10 05:15 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
 Quote:
The authority of the Temple of Set comes from Set directly and personally, in the Book of Coming Forth by Night.

Prove it.

I've been doing that for the past 35 years.


ROTFL!!! Oh shit. That was funny. You're so pathetic.

I've noticed a gradual deterioration in the coherency of your memeplex over the past 35 years Aquino.

During your early years you spent your time on the offensive with a certain amount of confidence in yourself. This is something I immediately noticed in your correspondence with "Steven Brown." Offensive here meaning that you asserted your claim over Satanism with your mandate from Set in a very confident way.

Now you spend you time on the defensive end of the game. This being a memetic battle field, your shift from offensive to defensive is significant [a sign of a losing battle]. Significant in the sense that today's generation isn't as retarded as that of the 70's and 80's who won't so easily bow down to some goofball with a mandate from an glorified fairy.

When you expire Aquino, these offensive counter-memes - which are more relevant and rational will disrupt the coherency of your aged memeplex fracturing it. Like you, your Temple of Set's time is running thin. I doubt it will out live Lavey's memeplex, which yours has never managed to out do.


Edited by Caladrius (08/07/10 05:16 PM)
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#41573 - 08/07/10 05:19 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Caladrius]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Caladrius
I see.

Actually you don't; you are just continuing to construct your own houses of cards to knock down. Your personal fetish, evidently, but not mine to indulge any further.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41574 - 08/07/10 05:54 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
Show me one piece of valid scientific evidence for the existence of Set.

Scientific evidence is valid only within the objective universe. I can show you evidence of any of the OU neteru, such as Bast in your housecat and Ra in the Sun. Set, however, is the neter not of the OU, hence can be apprehended only in distinction from it, as in your own conscious distinction from it, which is a particularization of his Form or Principle, just as your housecat and the Sun are of their neteru.

I have discussed this before in the 600C, and really don't see much point in saying it over and over again for persons who cannot, or will not see it. And frankly it doesn't strike me as in the least difficult to grasp. But this strange aversion to the essence of one's unique & isolate self is there all through recorded history, in all of the world's OU-religions, and of course in OU-bounded Atheism. I can only echo Mr. Spock: "Fascinating."

 Quote:
So far all it seems you have been doing for the past 35 years is holding a petty grudge.

I daresay thousands of Setians would disagree with you, not to mention the vast amount of literature, artwork, and other creative accomplishments in the Temple's archives.

And if all you can see in my memoirs of the Church of Satan is "a petty grudge", I can't help you there either. You're just going to be stuck being you, as it were.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41575 - 08/07/10 06:09 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
Scientific evidence is valid only within the objective universe.


I live in the Objective Universe, IE reality, so that is what I am concerned with. At least in this particular instance. If you can't prove the existence of Set objectively then you are wasting time.

 Quote:
I can show you evidence of any of the OU neteru, such as Bast in your housecat and Ra in the Sun.


Okay, do it.

 Quote:
I daresay thousands of Setians would disagree with you, not to mention the vast amount of literature, artwork, and other creative accomplishments in the Temple's archives.

And if all you can see in my memoirs of the Church of Satan is "a petty grudge", I can't help you there either. You're just going to be stuck being you, as it were.


I don't care what any number of Setian would agree with or disagree with. After 35 years all you have proven is: you can hold a grudge with a ferocity usually reserved for women, you have written an Ebook, you have an unhealthy obsession with Star Wars and you hear voices.

And I have never read your CoS memoirs, I don't really care what happened with all that. It was before my time and CoS is just of general disinterest to me these days anyway. What leads me to believe that you are holding a grudge is the way you have grudgingly argued with other members about the goings on of CoS over 30 years ago.

I simply don't like it when people make bullshit claims about the supernatural without being able to back it up with anything other than more supernatural claims of mystical bullshit and made up terms like "neter". You are nothing more than another whack-job street preacher except this particular whack-job has learned how to use a computer.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#41576 - 08/07/10 07:01 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
If not believing in revealed religious concepts and prophecy can be likened to being stuck, or trapped..please don't let me out. I prefer sanity to believing in the bogey man, and I don't see how letting go of my intellect in favour of just believing something that is both unevidenced and unfalsifiable is in any way superior.

Once one has accepted a belief that can not be called to task, on faith alone, one has lost their grip on reality. The claim that set revealed himself to aquino is no different than the claims of any of the thousands that claim to have spoken directly to jesus, allah, vishnu, or satan himself. They are all epistemologically worthless and unworthy of serious consideration to anyone with a 3 digit IQ (which in my experience, excludes most that define themselves as 'setian')
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#41580 - 08/07/10 07:55 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
I live in the Objective Universe, IE reality, so that is what I am concerned with. At least in this particular instance. If you can't prove the existence of Set objectively then you are wasting time.

Which serves to illustrate my previous point. I suppose the distinction inherent in your statement "I live in the OU" goes right over your head?

 Originally Posted By: 6S6A6
 Originally Posted By: MAA
I can show you evidence of any of the OU neteru, such as Bast in your housecat and Ra in the Sun.

Okay, do it.

Once again, I just did; and once again, right over your head.

 Originally Posted By: 6S6A6
I don't care what any number of Setian would agree with or disagree with.

In which case your mind is made up not to be confused with facts. Not my problem.

 Originally Posted By: 6S6A6
After 35 years all you have proven is: you can hold a grudge with a ferocity usually reserved for women, you have written an Ebook, you have an unhealthy obsession with Star Wars and you hear voices.

I'm still waiting to hear what "grudge" I am supposed to hold. Was I disappointed in Anton LaVey deciding to sell the Church of Satan's degrees and corrupting an institution to which so many of us had dedicated our lives over the previous decade? Sure. When we incorporated the Temple of Set in July 1975, we structured its Articles & By-Laws to ensure that nothing like that could happen again. That's all.

I wrote a Star Wars story which many people enjoyed, including Forrest J Ackerman so much that he published it in Famous Monsters of Filmland, and one of the original film's principal stars. Your problem with this is ..?

No, I don't "hear voices" either. Once again the actual circumstance of the Book of Coming Forth by Night eludes you, and once again that's your problem.

 Originally Posted By: 6A6S6
And I have never read your CoS memoirs, I don't really care what happened with all that. It was before my time and CoS is just of general disinterest to me these days anyway. What leads me to believe that you are holding a grudge is the way you have grudgingly argued with other members about the goings on of CoS over 30 years ago.

Well, if you don't care about it, why keep bringing it up? As for Church of Satan history, I have simply posted corrections to misinformation, assuming that others here [if not you] are interested in historical accuracy. I have yet to see a factual error of mine corrected, either here or in The Church of Satan, but the invitation remains appreciatively open.

 Originally Posted By: 6A6S6
I simply don't like it when people make bullshit claims about the supernatural without being able to back it up with anything other than more supernatural claims of mystical bullshit and made up terms like "neter". You are nothing more than another whack-job street preacher except this particular whack-job has learned how to use a computer.

_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41581 - 08/07/10 08:10 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
 Quote:
Was I disappointed in Anton LaVey deciding to sell the Church of Satan's degrees and corrupting an institution to which so many of us had dedicated our lives over the previous decade? Sure. When we incorporated the Temple of Set in July 1975, we structured its Articles & By-Laws to ensure that nothing like that could happen again. That's all.


And so instead of selling it, you and your friend Set gave them away to crack heads and meth heads like Zeena and con-artists your "son in law" pointed out?

Set seems to have poor people judging power.
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#41582 - 08/07/10 08:12 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
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.

 Quote:
Was I disappointed in Anton LaVey deciding to sell the Church of Satan's degrees and corrupting an institution to which so many of us had dedicated our lives over the previous decade? Sure. When we incorporated the Temple of Set in July 1975, we structured its Articles & By-Laws to ensure that nothing like that could happen again. That's all.


If that's all then why do you keep talking about it? Why the continuous debasement of people who don't believe in Set? THAT is the grudge you seem to have. You maintain that the original view of CoS was that Satan was a literal entity. No one agrees with you and instead of just moving on you still feel the need argue about it. If you are so sure you are right, fine, just shut the fuck up about it already, please.

 Quote:
I wrote a Star Wars story which many people enjoyed, including Forrest J Ackerman so much that he published it in Famous Monsters of Filmland, and one of the original film's principal stars. Your problem with this is ..?


Who said I had a problem? For awhile there pretty much every post you made was tied into Star Wars one way or another and it simply seemed like you were overly fixated on it.

 Quote:
No, I don't "hear voices" either. Once again the actual circumstance of the Book of Coming Forth by Night eludes you, and once again that's your problem.


You maintain that Set communicated with you in some form or another and gave you a mandate to create ToS. That is the same as hearing voices from where I'm sitting. Whether or not there were any actual sounds that you heard is irrelevant. The point is that you claim to be able to communicate, through whatever crazy means, with a supernatural entity. It is a wonder you haven't been fitted for a straight jacket and given daily injections of Thorazine.

 Quote:
Well, if you don't care about it, why keep bringing it up?


You must be going senile in your old age. I wasn't the one who brought up your memoirs, You did; assuming that I had actually read them.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#41583 - 08/07/10 08:14 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Oxus Online
member


Registered: 04/15/10
Posts: 509
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.


Oxus

Top
#41584 - 08/07/10 08:25 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Oxus]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
 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.


Oxus


God damn... talk about being a big pussy.

Aquino, I think one of your homosexual emoboy followers is ass kissing you.

"Dr. Aquino, can I perform oral sex on you?"
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#41585 - 08/07/10 09:14 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Caladrius]
Oxus Online
member


Registered: 04/15/10
Posts: 509
LOL . . . Caladrius: is a snow-white bird that lives in kings' houses. Come on, isn't that just a metaphor for your minuscule, almost non-existent palpitate useless member shoved up someone's greater and useful ASS?

 Originally Posted By: Caladrius
 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.


Oxus


God damn... talk about being a big pussy.

Aquino, I think one of your homosexual emoboy followers is ass kissing you.

"Dr. Aquino, can I perform oral sex on you?"

Top
#41586 - 08/07/10 09:27 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Oxus]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
 Originally Posted By: Oxus
LOL . . . Caladrius: is a snow-white bird that lives in kings' houses. Come on, isn't that just a metaphor for your minuscule, almost non-existent palpitate useless member shoved up someone's greater and useful ASS?


Do you often think about putting things up your ass when you see references to small animals?

Is a little powder white bird too small for your man-pussy? You need a big coke dipped gerbil to stretch your pick sock or what?

I just thought your fag comment you left for Aquino was funny. It reminds me of Aquino being an old Pedagogue with a fagboy as a student. Does he give you guys the "at a boy" for kissing his ass? Are the other Setians as faggotty as you?


Edited by Caladrius (08/07/10 09:31 PM)
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#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: 2517
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: 2517
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: 3810
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: 3116
 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: 3810
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: 2517
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: 3116
 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: 3116
 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
#41672 - 08/09/10 09:58 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Quote:
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.


That's an easy one, the mentioning and using of the SU as a response to questions in which evidence is needed is like playing down the trump)card of god. It is annoying and in the end unproductive during debate. Which is quite frankly the only problem I am having when reading trough this entire topic, and which is also the one of the problems Dan,6 and Caladrius are pointing out.

 Quote:
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.

I find her manners good enough, they bring in a fresh breeze and it provides a new way to look at things. On the other hand, I think MAA is old enough to handle with it if he finds it that of a nuisance. In other words, he can fight his own battles.

Oh btw, I also find mentioning with the title "Dr" quite disturbing. It almost seems like you are trying to kiss ass.


Edited by Dimitri (08/09/10 10:15 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#41674 - 08/09/10 12:22 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
How can you even see the keyboard with your head lodged so far up Aquino's ass?

 Quote:
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.


This in no way proves the existence of Set or neteru nor does it provide good reason to believe that either of those things exists. All it proves is that people have believed in bullshit for a long time. That is nothing new.

 Quote:
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.


If that is the case then this "neteru" certainly does not exist anymore than the Platonic Forms. The Forms are the non-existent perfect representation of whatever they are the form of; I.E Platonic Form of tree, apple, nipple, whatever. What you are saying here is that the neteru is the perfect representation of the objective material world and that makes no sense, at all.

 Quote:
“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.


So....Set is only real if I believe it is real? Belief in something does not make it so. And if Set can only be perceived subjectively then why argue for its existence? Your arguments ultimately amount to nothing since Set can only be perceived subjectively.

 Quote:
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.


In other words Set is like Carl Sagan's invisible garage unicorns. \:D
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#41683 - 08/09/10 06:44 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
The key issue here is really evidence. What distinguishes the claim that set exists, and is further responsible for human (but not animal) consciousness, from similar claims from other religions across the globe?

People claim to subjectively experience jesus, allah, etc every day. What makes these claims stand apart from those?

As with other theistic claims, the first step is establishing some sort of reasonable basis to conclude there is such a thing as set. So far, we have had consciousness itself presented as that evidence. Christians claim this as evidence as well. They can't both be right.

If consciousness itself can only be explained by magic(which has not been established by a long shot), why should it be 'set' and not jesus, or allah, or leprechauns? How can the claims be distinguished from each other? 'Set told aquino' is not a lick more convincing than 'jesus told paul', or 'allah told mohammed'.Laid out in a row they seem to be the very same thing, in a slightly different dressing.

The second step (even though the first one seems insurmountable) is to show this entity is further responsible for human consciousness, and to establish humans as the sole bearers of this consciousness. To accept these particular claims is to turn a blind eye to many established facts, and move counter intuitively to what is known about animal intelligence and consciousness - that is..to ignore it.

That people on one hand dismiss other revealed religious claims as hokey yet accept this particular series of highly unlikely premises as plausible makes me laugh, deep in my belly.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#41684 - 08/09/10 09:04 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
I'm finding this a fascinating thread and will post on the theistic/atheistic argument at a later time. In the meantime, however, here is an example of a discussion on the complexities inherent in believing only in that which is objectively verifiable.

A good pal of mine - Atheist - always insisted that he would only ever believe in what he could apprehend with his five senses and which could be proven by scientific means. His take on human beings was that we are all carbon-based life-forms who are born, live and die like all other animals. End of. Then he fell in love.
I asked him one night during one of our many wine-fuelled debates, what made him so certain of the reality of the "love" he felt for his wife (and her child, the son of her previous husband)? He claimed he just "knew" it and that his strength of feeling left him no doubt that he would do anything for his family. I asked him how he measured this "feeling", intangible, invisible and inaudible as it was. He could provide no answer based on his previous criteria for assessing something's existence.
So, here was someone insisting that it was not illogical to base their entire personal, emotional and financial security on their "feeling" for one other person and their offspring. Now, I'm not citing this as some example of romantic love conquering all but I certainly found it interesting that this man saw no contradiction between defining all human beings - including by extension his wife and step-son - as temporary beings whose affections for each other were based on chemical, animal attraction and his commitment to his family as if the latter was of inherent value. Why did he agree to be "fooled" by this "feeling"?
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#41690 - 08/10/10 03:28 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Sorry I haven’t responded earlier. I just wanted to add some additional thoughts here in relation to what you have posted 6.

The Platonic forms are not representations. Plato’s theory of Forms, from what I have understood, is a philosophical theory of universals and particulars. In this sense, particulars are derived or are manifestations of universal form/s. These forms constitute essential reality and our ability to make any legitimate knowledge claims, according to this line of thinking, is based on a genuine correspondence between the essential reality of the forms and our conclusions regarding the forms.

The forms are not non-existent. To be able to speak of or to conceive Platonic forms is to invest this concept with a meaning and hence an existence. A better choice of words is required here. Possibly you could state that the Platonic forms have no objective validity or material reality?

We now get back to the basic point I was trying to make to Caladrius above. How do you personally refute subjective idealism and philosophically legitimate a realist or materialist metaphysics or ontology?

You do mention that arguments related to the existence of Set amount to nothing since Set can only be perceived subjectively. (I personally would clarify this and state that Set is perceived or apprehended subjectively under certain special circumstances.) I would invite you to define subjectively and subjectivity philosophically in a concise and clear manner, and then determine the relationship between the philosophical subject and its real object or objectivity, and the constitution of this real object or objectivity.

Without doing this you are unable to make any legitimate claims regarding the existence or non - existence of Set, or the Platonic forms. You are fundamentally operating on assumptions without a philosophic grounding.

Top
#41691 - 08/10/10 03:36 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
Raffy Offline
pledge


Registered: 10/20/09
Posts: 76
Loc: Chicago
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
I recall reading ONA documents, which state that this organization believes in acausal dark Gods?


OK, this is my own understanding of these ONA concepts, which I believe are derived from texts such as

http://www.davidmyatt.info/acausal-physics-partone.html

First off, the acausal (acausal Space-Time) is considered to physically exist, just like normal causal Space-Time.

Therefore, there can be an acausal Physics - an experimental science based on practical observations which can verfiy things, and theories, and so on.

The basis for this new acausal science is acausal energy - just as physical energy/matter is the basis for our science of (causal) Physics.

Therefore, both the acausal and the causal realms are objective, not subjective. It's just we haven't yet developed acausal science and the acausal technology - of living, organic machines - based on acausal energy. The start of this new science would be in detecting acausal charges.

Seems Myatt has been working on a new math to describe the nature of acausal Space and acausal Time, which is totally different from the math which currently describes causal Space-Time (as in Riemannian geometry for example).

Now, back to the Dark Gods. They are presumed to be (note it's only a presumption, at this time) a type of living being who dwell in the acausal continuum, and who have a physical existence there (that is, an acausal physical form). This, currently, of course is speculation - and where the ONA diverges significantly from Myatt's more practical theories.

For what it's worth, here's Myatt's take on detecting acausal charges -

 Quote:
The acausal charges should, if they exist - that is, if the suppositions above are correct - be capable of being physically detected. That is, they should be capable of being observed, by us, and should be capable of being measured quantitatively using some measuring device devised for such a purpose. Following such detection and measurement, observations of the behaviour of such acausal charges could be made. Such observations would then form the basis for theories describing the nature and the laws of such charges. The result would then be the construction of organic machines and equipment, following the invention of basic "machines" to generate, or produce, moving acausal charges.

A useful comparison to aid the understanding of such a process of discovery, measurement and theory, exists in the history of electricity. Static electricity was known for many centuries, but not understood until the concept of positive and negative charges was postulated. Later, instruments such as the gold-leaf electroscope were invented for detecting and measuring such charges. Other instruments, such as frictional machines and the Leyden jar, were invented for producing and accumulating, or storing, electric charges, and producing small 'galvanic currents' or electricity. Then the great experimental scientist Faraday showed that 'galvanic currents', magnetism and static charges were all related, and produced what we now call an electro-magnetic generator to produce electricity. From such simple experimental beginnings, our world has been transformed by machines and equipment using electricity, and by the electronics which has developed from electricity.

It seems logical to suggest that acausal charges cannot be detected by any measuring equipment based on electricity, or any electrical property such as resistance - for electricity is purely a causal phenomena, describable in terms of causal Physics. To detect acausal charge and thus some acausal change, something acausal may have to be used. This may well be something organic - that is, something living which possesses the property of responding to the presence (nearness) of the acausal charge(s) inherent in living things.


That's taken from http://www.davidmyatt.info/spacetimebeing.html which was, I think, a later revision (around 1999 CE) of Myatt's first account of his causal/acausal theory, dated c. 1976 CE which theory he then called "cliology" - or something like that - a term he later abandoned.
_________________________
Those who are not our sinister brothers or sisters are mundanes

Top
#41693 - 08/10/10 05:17 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Raffy]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
Let me be the first to shine a skeptic light over the rant.
 Quote:
First off, the acausal (acausal Space-Time) is considered to physically exist, just like normal causal Space-Time.

It is considered by who or what? How do you know it is like normal space-time? Is it because you have measurments and real evidence or is it just a matter of belief? If you claim an existence I would like to an evidence. A simple mathematical formula to show parallel universes having the ability to manifest in this one should be sufficient (or images/videos wherein acausal space-time and causal space-time can interact).

 Quote:
Therefore, there can be an acausal Physics - an experimental science based on practical observations which can verfiy things, and theories, and so on.

Sounds sane enough. If an alternative plane exists then alternate physics should also exist.

 Quote:
The basis for this new acausal science is acausal energy - just as physical energy/matter is the basis for our science of (causal) Physics.

Here comes the first bump in the road; define acausal energy and why it is different from causal energy?

 Quote:
Therefore, both the acausal and the causal realms are objective, not subjective. It's just we haven't yet developed acausal science and the acausal technology - of living, organic machines - based on acausal energy. The start of this new science would be in detecting acausal charges.

If you can measure acausal energy in the causal Universe, is it really acausal energy and not simply causal energy? (On the condition it exists..). Another problem would include how you can measure or even work with this acuasal plane/universe if you cannot even see it and live with the presumption it truly is there. It's quite the same problem as Aquino mentioning his SU. It is but a matter of belief.

 Quote:
Seems Myatt has been working on a new math to describe the nature of acausal Space and acausal Time, which is totally different from the math which currently describes causal Space-Time (as in Riemannian geometry for example).

Mathematiques have been proven to universally explain everything. It is also the only EXACT branch of science. What do you propose with "a new math"? Do you mean finding new ways to calculate by the use of already existing formulas or "new" in the sense of searching for new methods such as Newton and Leibnitz did for linking integrals and differentiation?

Maybe you should revise your point of view. It shares quite a resemblance with theories such as the existence of gods on other planes, our "energy" flowing towards a huge universal ball of energy on a different plane before being reincarnated etc etc..
All of these lacking the neccesary evidences and sharing the only evidence being "faith".


Edited by Dimitri (08/10/10 05:19 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#41697 - 08/10/10 08:00 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Dimitri]
Raffy Offline
pledge


Registered: 10/20/09
Posts: 76
Loc: Chicago
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Let me be the first to shine a skeptic light over the rant.

Let me be perhaps the first to point out that your use of the pejorative term "rant" seems to be both inaccurate and inappropriate. A check on the meaning of the word "rant" might be appropriate, here.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
It is considered by who or what? How do you know it is like normal space-time?

It is a theory - a fact which you should have noticed - based on certain axioms or postulates.

It is firstly a philosophical theory about the nature of Being, and secondly a speculative theory about the physical nature of the Cosmos.

As an ontology of Being, it may be interesting to some from a philosophical point of view, especially in relation to epistemology.

As a speculative physical theory, while it may be interesting, it requires observational evidence for it be accepted. This evidence would be based upon the detection and measurement of acausal charges. Currently, there is no such direct experimental evidence. All this is, I do believe, stated or implicit in the texts I gave links to, and in other writings by Myatt on the subject.

Note that Myatt states - "If the postulated acausal charges exist, then they should be capable of being detected and their "energy" measured."

That is - postulated acausal charges.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Here comes the first bump in the road; define acausal energy and why it is different from causal energy?

Had you perused the documents, you might have noticed the definitions.

But, basically, acausal charge is what animates living organisms and thus what makes ordinary, causal, matter "alive". At the basic level of a living cell, for example, it's what makes that cell different from an inorganic compound of various molecules. Thus, a causal manifestation of acausal charge are the properties that distinguish living organisms - especially the quality of change in an object without an external force being applied to it (as required by Newtonian Physics e.g.). This type of change is the growth of a living organism (at least I think so given my limited understanding of the matter).

Someone else may be better able, more qualified, to explain this stuff. I'm no expert.


 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
What do you propose with "a new math"?

So far as I understand the subject, Myatt proposes a new math which is not based on the notion of causal duration or causal separation, which both are implicit in the Riemannian and Euclidean metrics used to represent (causal) Space-Time, and as expressed, e.g., in the Tensor analysis and differential equations currently used in Physics.

Instead, it's based on the metric of acausal Space-Time, where there is no linear (causal) progression of either time or space, and no causal notion of separation. The philosophical ideas behind this are as described in

http://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/2010/05/30/acausality-phainomenon-and-the-appearance-of-causality/

Now, all the above are explained better in Myatt's unpublished book, The Physics of Acausal Energy, which I've seen a draft copy of - but is still "a work in progress", and due out in a couple of years.

Meanwhile, some may find the ideas - the theory, axioms, postulates - of interest; many will not.

So, do please be sceptical, I know I am. Isn't that how science and knowledge gets advanced?

Also, since science and math and even philosophy aren't my fields - mine are of a much more practical and urban nature \:\) - I can't really comment any further. The sum total of my limited understanding of the matter is contained above.

I am not saying I believe or disbelieve in the stuff - I'm only trying to present an unbiased view of the theory itself, so far as I can understand it. So, you can take it or leave it.

I do however think it's an interesting theory, and may be relevant since some here raised the matter of the ONA's concept of the acausal.

That's it for me - so it's over to others now, as I've reached the limits of my understanding of the subjects under debate.
_________________________
Those who are not our sinister brothers or sisters are mundanes

Top
#41699 - 08/10/10 09:06 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Raffy]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Quote:
It is a theory - a fact which you should have noticed - based on certain axioms or postulates.

A theory is a term used to describe a hypothetical idea in which already certain trends and projectings towards reality have been noticed. In other words, there is a trend being noticed on which real-world activities can be predicted. As this is not the case with the idea of acausal planes I am glad to inform you that this idea is but a mere hypothese. And most hypotheses tend to be wrong. Haven't I already warned you not to spew around words which you barely know the definition of?
If the idea of acausal planes have been postulated then I would like to see an OBJECTIVE source.

 Quote:
As a speculative physical theory, while it may be interesting, it requires observational evidence for it be accepted. This evidence would be based upon the detection and measurement of acausal charges. Currently, there is no such direct experimental evidence. All this is, I do believe, stated or implicit in the texts I gave links to, and in other writings by Myatt on the subject.

What part didn't you get in my previous response?
On another note; there is no such thing as "speculative theory". The fact something is speculative is for the reasons:
a)plain and simple ignorance
b)A lack of knowledge on the subject
c)a moral obstruction where all means are being used to make it seem less valid
d)another wording to say it is but an idea that wants to be passed on as a scientific theory/fact/law without any need for evidence

I shall once again repeat it: how come you will be sure it is acausal energy you speak of and not causal? This question is enforced by the fact you already said it cannot be observed or measured in the causal plane. On the other hand you are talking about possibilities of measuring it by acausal machines. I see this as providing the proof of the existance of god by asking the participants to commit suicide and see what happens next. It's not an answer, it is a leap of faith.

 Quote:
Note that Myatt states - "If the postulated acausal charges exist, then they should be capable of being detected and their "energy" measured."

That is - postulated acausal charges.

Once again, how come so sure it is acausal energy and not causal? I've seen enough loonies walking around with EMP detectors to measure if there was ghostly activity in a house/room and stating it was loaded as soon as they passed a generator or hidden electric circuits. Perhaps watching this will help an awfull lot to clean out the trash stored in your brain.

 Quote:
But, basically, acausal charge is what animates living organisms and thus what makes ordinary, causal, matter "alive". At the basic level of a living cell, for example, it's what makes that cell different from an inorganic compound of various molecules. Thus, a causal manifestation of acausal charge are the properties that distinguish living organisms - especially the quality of change in an object without an external force being applied to it (as required by Newtonian Physics e.g.). This type of change is the growth of a living organism
What basically makes organisms alive (and keep them that way) are complex chemical reactions. Nothing more and nothing less.
I think your lack of scientific knowledge is about the only reason you tend to believe the acausal-bs.

 Quote:
(at least I think so given my limited understanding of the matter).

Funny, you are trying to debate a person in a field where you have a limited understanding of? Before you take on a correcting or mentoring position, at least learn to know your shit.

 Quote:

So, do please be sceptical, I know I am. Isn't that how science and knowledge gets advanced?

To be honest, I think you barely are. Otherwise you should have seen the fallacies regarding this issue. Unless ofcourse you are skeptic in the definition of defending your beliefs by all means neccesary.

 Quote:
Instead, it's based on the metric of acausal Space-Time, where there is no linear (causal) progression of either time or space, and no causal notion of separation. The philosophical ideas behind this are as described in

http://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/2010/05/30/acausality-phainomenon-and-the-appearance-of-causality/

In other words, he is trying to use metrics as a tool to provide evidence of other acausal metrics. I think I already know the results and conclusions that will be drawn..
You know like affirming the negative by stating the negative.

 Quote:
I do however think it's an interesting theory, and may be relevant since some here raised the matter of the ONA's concept of the acausal.

The mentioning of acausal was done by me for the purpose that the acausal and SU share the same basic evidence: a leap of faith. With the SU only differantiating itself for being a view which is personalized instead of an idea (like the acausal) which should be taken for granted by believers.

While this was meant as a joke, I can (or 6 can) pull it off as a real religion and get a gathering of people who fall into this BS. I can even make Q'jhxzyedf (or Bill) an acausal entity and relate it towards ONA if needed to. (On the condition I'm good with PR and manage to sell it as a coherent pack at first sight).
There are words and pieces of sentences as indicated as such. Guess why..


Edited by Dimitri (08/10/10 09:17 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#41708 - 08/10/10 12:15 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Dimitri]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
These are all "theories" and "ideas" Dimitri. Doubt and skepticism is great, but I believe the object of Empirical Science is to take a new idea or theory and try to prove it first before classifying it as BS or plausible.

At least Myatt's theory is presented as a theory and is up for tests. Whereas Aquino's theory of the "Subjective Universe" is explained as being imaginary so it is beyond tests and scientific proof.

I would seem to think that Raffy also presented Myatt's Acausal theory because you and one other did ask or assume that the "Acausal" and Aquino's "subjective universe" are the same thing or something. They aren't. One is a theory the other is subjective \:\)

I am not one to debate, so this will be my last post in this thread. I had fun.
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#41712 - 08/10/10 12:56 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Dimitri]
Raffy Offline
pledge


Registered: 10/20/09
Posts: 76
Loc: Chicago
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
A theory is blah blah blah...

What googling informs you it is, or what some book describes, or what someone told you.

Which makes me to wonder if you know how words such as exeatic ever came into existence. A rhetorical question, BTW.

That you intersperse your replies (or should that be rants?) with vituperative words and phrases such as "clean out the trash stored in your brain", and "the acausal-bs" is indicative; and of what, the truly sagacious will know.

After all, even Isaac Newton still believed in God, even if in his own particular way; a product of his Age, as you seem to be a product of this Internet age.

Meanwhile, methinks you might have some things to learn, especially about the ways of the true scholar, of which this is one clue, a quote from a scholar: "But that is only my own personal conclusion... which therefore does not necessarily mean it is correct."

Or, if you prefer, this from the Dhammapada:

 Quote:
“Yo bâlo maññati bâlyaè paúóitovâpi tena so bâlo ca paúóitamânî sa ve bâloti vuccati.”

” Accepting of themselves, the simple person in their simplicity is wise, although if they pride themselves they are wise, they are simply full of pride. “



BTW, my previous reply said all that I wanted to say about the topic of the acausal, and presented, I do believe, the topic in an informative and unbiased way, so do please feel to rant away again, about the topic or about me.

For if anyone is seriously interested in the topic of the acausal (something I doubt), they can do their own research and arrive at their own conclusions.
_________________________
Those who are not our sinister brothers or sisters are mundanes

Top
#41715 - 08/10/10 01:22 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Caladrius]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Quote:
Doubt and skepticism is great, but I believe the object of Empirical Science is to take a new idea or theory and try to prove it first before classifying it as BS or plausible.

According from the writings about the acausal I have read thusfar, all agreed that the acausal cannot be measured with causal instruments (I.E. instruments from this plane). They further provided that they must be and can only be measured by instruments or tools or mechanisms from the acausal and that to provide it so, a causal tool must be infused with something acausal to provide the evidence.
Pardon me to say it so bluntly, but is a fucking cheap way to say you can't provide evidence for the reason you have no tools which are suited for it (which in a matter of fact is the case since you are working with made-up physics and need to find a way to twist it into something "commercial"/available for the mudane masses).

And please, don't use theory and idea as a synonim? There is a vast difference between the 2 and huge steps to be taken to get from the one to the other..

 Quote:
At least Myatt's theory is presented as a theory and is up for tests.

Nope, it's but a mere idea. An idea equal to that of the existence of a god. (I wonder when we reach the point of the violent raping of quantumdynamics for metaphysical explanation..).

 Quote:
Whereas Aquino's theory of the "Subjective Universe" is explained as being imaginary so it is beyond tests and scientific proof.

Aquino's theory of SU is indeed imaginary as opposed to the OU. The mere definition of SU is even a dead give-away. The use of SU is not to be seen as a different plane where other creatures exist (such as the acausal), but it can be compared as a plane constructed by your very own personal mind.


 Quote:
I would seem to think that Raffy also presented Myatt's Acausal theory because you and one other did ask or assume that the "Acausal" and Aquino's "subjective universe" are the same thing or something. They aren't. One is a theory the other is subjective

Did not ask about it, merely tagged the fact that both "theories"/ideas as used in a debate/discussion require the believer to make a leap of faith. I am aware of the differences both have.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#41717 - 08/10/10 01:58 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Raffy]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Quote:
What googling informs you it is, or what some book describes, or what someone told you.

That's what uninformed and retarded masses think.
Someone told me once the story that atoms are in fact other universes as the one we live in with intelligent life. This intelligent life within those atoms had high levels of technology which made it possible for them to conquer that entire universe. The building blocks from which these creatures in atoms,which were in fact universes, were also made up by the same strategy. He also told that it was our duty to achieve an equal level of technology and thus contribute towards an even bigger person which was made up by our and many other universes at the size of an atom.
And I'm not making this shit up: http://members.ziggo.nl/r.f.dezwart/Frame-engels.html
(I once had a lenghty discussion with this ass-hat and despite it looks as a joke, the guy is dead serious).
He also wanted to pass it off as a "theory", in reality it is nothing more then a hypothese. He was lacking evidence and was even in troubles when it came down to the laws of thermodynamics and astronomical discoveries (expanding universe).

 Quote:
After all, even Isaac Newton still believed in God, even if in his own particular way; a product of his Age, as you seem to be a product of this Internet age.

And your point being? Darwin himself was almost a priest, yet made it possible of the idea of evolution becoming a theory.
Ones accomplishments in science (or interests) are seperate from personal beliefs. It is even the case that Skeptic James Randi helds a Atheistic position/view of life, but in reality puts forth an agnostic attitude for the reason he simply doesn't know if there is something "out there". Most scientists will say they are Atheists but in reality have an agnostic attitude since science asks to question things and wants the scientist to take in an objective position. (Same goes for persons like Dawkins, Hitchens,..). It can also be the other way round such as in the case of Newton being interested and a believer in gods, yet by the attitude needed for science discovers natural laws which do not stroke with views from his time (and/or personal views).

So don't give me that particular lame excuse...

 Quote:
Meanwhile, methinks you might have some things to learn, especially about the ways of the true scholar, of which this is one clue, a quote from a scholar: "But that is only my own personal conclusion... which therefore does not necessarily mean it is correct."

A true scholar study, thinks, experience and learns. His personal conclusion should be one which has passed occams razor and has a strong scientific basis or evidences.

I find it funny you prefer to give subtle insults of calling others while you are the one who needs to change his ways. If you can't win a fight by lack of power it is better to retread instead of messing around.
The use of what seems like "advanced" vocabulary doesn't hide the fact you are talking out of your ass in an attempt to come across as less of an idiot.


Edited by Dimitri (08/10/10 02:05 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#41737 - 08/10/10 08:00 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Dimitri]
Raffy Offline
pledge


Registered: 10/20/09
Posts: 76
Loc: Chicago
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
That's what uninformed and retarded masses think.

Just what are you trying to prove, here, about yourself?

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
A true scholar study, thinks, experience and learns. His personal conclusion should be one which has passed occams razor and has a strong scientific basis or evidences.

Incorrect - and your reply demonstrates much, about the assumptions you make, and other things.

Strong scientific bases, or evidences? Both with Occams razor? One needs to define terms - what is "strong" in relation to a scientific basis, and just what is a scientific "basis"? What and how does one define "evidences"? The "evidences" for instance of philologist are somewhat different from the "evidences" that a philosopher might seek to utilize, which again are different from the "evidences" that a mathematician or a biologist would use.

Furthermore, what has the cliché of Occams razor got to do with some fields of scholarly research?

While the logical principle sometimes referred to by that clichéd term is often applicable in certain areas - as a guide only (not as a fundamental principle, note) - one might, if one were being scholarly, argue that William of Ockham was just repeating a principle well-known at the time in the Islamic world, and which principle also formed part of what some now refer to as Islamic jurisprudence, and which principle, along with others, was stated quite some time before Ockham, in a work by Abd Allah ibn al-Husayn al-Karkhi, for instance. [Feel free to google his name, BTW.]

One could further argue that the principles as stated in such Islamic works was in fact based upon some statements made by Aristotle, but this is unproven, as yet.

Thus, here the scholarly opinion would not be to refer to that principle by such a clichéd, and somewhat inaccurate, term as you used.

One might therefore present a more accurate - a scholarly - picture of a scholar, as someone whose conclusions arise from a long period of study of and reflection upon a particular specialized subject or area, amounting to many years (and often a decade or more), and who applies the particular methodology applicable to that subject, or that has become accepted by other scholars as applicable to that subject, but who might also revise that methodology or develop a new one, and which revision or new development will be subject a critical review by scholars of that specialized subject or area, which review will often last for many years, or a decade or longer, and which may or may not become accepted.

 Quote:
you are talking out of your ass in an attempt to come across as less of an idiot.

I do believe my replies reveal the above statement, by you, for what it is.
_________________________
Those who are not our sinister brothers or sisters are mundanes

Top
#41741 - 08/10/10 10:09 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Dimitri]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



I am going to restate my own position in regards to this and leave it alone unless someone responds to me directly.

In regards to The Order of the Nine Angles

The notion of the acausal and of dark gods is of interest to me and worthy of study though the conclusions reached as a result of that study may be negative. There are some aspects of the ONA philosophy which I have opposed in the most aggressive manner possible as evidenced in other threads, but I am prepared to at least acknowledge other areas as interesting and important for the sake of open - mindedness.

In regards to the real existence of Set

I refer the reader to Chapter 2 of Dr. Aquino TOS ebook (I have referred the reader to this ebook because it is easier and more sensible to refer to it, then try to copy and paste an entire chapter from the ebook into this post.) To state that the existence of Set is merely an imaginary and exclusive product of the person who experiences it, or an error in someone’s head, and therefore has no validity at all, is not open – minded to any extent. Many members of the Temple (from what I understand) have undergone this same type of unique subjective experience. This may not be the genuine evidence or provide the conclusive proof of Set’s existence, which some members require, but it at least must make one stop and at least wonder to some extent. It must at least cause one to suspend judgement momentarily, look more closely at the whole thing and rethink the issue to some extent.

In regards to the subjective/objective universe relation

I am interested in the way someone can legitimately transcend subjective idealism, the extreme of solipsism and the type of scepticism Hume was led into. I think that if someone can posit an objective or real or material world then they should be able to demonstrate the philosophical process of getting out of ones head and into that outside world, and then further define and describe that outside world philosophically. I think this process needs to take place first as a prelude to the articulation of an argument, which legitimately and thoroughly demonstrates any possible errors of the Setian worldview. I think one may be simply making groundless assertions without doing this as a priority.

In regards to the OU Neteru

I personally have likened the Neteru, which occupy the Objective Universe, to Platonic forms. This approach was based on my understanding of what I have already read and may not accord with the ancient Egyptian metaphysical system, which the Neteru are embedded within, and which the Temple itself may advocate. I find this notion of the reality of universals to be quite valuable, and an interesting way of looking at the world ontologically. (A key for my further study is to examine how the Platonic forms relate to the Ancient Egyptian system from which the Neteru are positioned and to consider the Ancient Egyptian definition of Neteru itself.)

Top
#41755 - 08/11/10 02:38 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Raffy]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
Congratulations, you have managed to proof yourself as an idiot who can use the internet to make posts with added information which have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

For your hard-headed attitude you can see yourself as ignored untill you provide something intelligent instead of hollow words.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#41775 - 08/11/10 09:40 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Dimitri]
Lamar Offline
member


Registered: 02/03/10
Posts: 226
Loc: Alabama
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Congratulations, you have managed to proof yourself as an idiot who can use the internet to make posts with added information which have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

For your hard-headed attitude you can see yourself as ignored untill you provide something intelligent instead of hollow words.

Was you referring to MathewJ1's post or Raffy's? I thought MathewJ1's was insightful.

Top
#41783 - 08/11/10 11:54 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
The Platonic forms are not representations.


Yes they are.

 Quote:
The forms are not non-existent.


Yes they are and you are splitting hairs here. The Forms simply an idea and have no material existence. Just because you are able to talk about something and give it meaning doesn't make it real or give it an existence.

 Quote:
We now get back to the basic point I was trying to make to Caladrius above. How do you personally refute subjective idealism and philosophically legitimate a realist or materialist metaphysics or ontology?


Is this your way of asking how I explain reality, existence etc. without resorting to to imaginary friends? stimulus, response, chemical reactions in the brain, nothing that spectacular really. We live, we die, the end.

 Quote:
You do mention that arguments related to the existence of Set amount to nothing since Set can only be perceived subjectively. (I personally would clarify this and state that Set is perceived or apprehended subjectively under certain special circumstances.) I would invite you to define subjectively and subjectivity philosophically in a concise and clear manner, and then determine the relationship between the philosophical subject and its real object or objectivity, and the constitution of this real object or objectivity.


Sigh. It is quite simple. I have no idea what your subjective reality looks like. For example, I have no way of knowing how you see the color blue. Much like you have no way of knowing how I see the color red. In the objective reality, of which we are all a part (though some more so than others admittedly). In this objective reality there are trees, clouds, rivers and a myriad of other things that both of us, though existing in our own subjective reality i.e. our minds, can point to and say to the other "look at that dog".

However, to say that Set can only be perceived subjectively is to say that it doesn't exist objectively. Ultimately this is just a cop out; you can not prove the existence so you expect people to just believe on faith. To give another example that would be like me saying that I have Lotus Elise and when someone asks for a ride I tell them "Well, it only exists subjectively." Sounds rather silly in that context, doesn't it?

 Quote:
You are fundamentally operating on assumptions without a philosophic grounding.


Philosophy is a good way to think about things in a new way and pass the time but when I want to know about things the way they are, I will look to hard science.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#41787 - 08/11/10 01:09 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Dimitri]
Raffy Offline
pledge


Registered: 10/20/09
Posts: 76
Loc: Chicago
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Congratulations, you have managed to proof yourself as an idiot who can use the internet to make posts with added information which have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

No doubt writing that made you feel better about yourself. It is such an effort, isn't it, to maintain a certain Internet image of yourself?

Trying too hard, perhaps? A certain lack of that self honesty and the inner balance of certain opposites which is necessary for progression beyond a certain stage along "our" Way? One has to know when to admit certain things about, and to, one's self.

Time, then, for another rant, perhaps? Or possibly some inner reflection? How silly of me to expect the latter...

How silly to even expect all this to be understood. No sinister-empathy here. then.

"Nothing to do with the subject..."? Hmmm. Since you attempted to define a scholar it seemed only fair to give a better definition \:\)

I think my causal time here is done.
_________________________
Those who are not our sinister brothers or sisters are mundanes

Top
Page all of 14 12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.234 seconds of which 0.007 seconds were spent on 212 queries. Zlib compression disabled.