Page 13 of 14 « First<1011121314>
Topic Options
#41672 - 08/09/10 09:58 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: ]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3153
 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: 3935
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: 3153
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: 3153
 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: 320
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.
_________________________
Chloe 352

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: 3153
 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: 3153
 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
Page 13 of 14 « First<1011121314>


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

Generated in 0.027 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.