Page 1 of 4 1234>
Topic Options
#57042 - 07/18/11 01:33 AM Doubt
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
It can be said that doubt is necessary to retain one's sanity, that a philosophy becomes a belief system when the follower chooses to ignore the possibilities.


Unless you have the knowledge of the entire universe then one must be willing to admit that the ideas they have postulated may not be correct. A true seeker should not forget the fact that unless the event's probability is above zero the event is possible, that the individual may be .000000000000001 chance that although realistically this is unlikely to happen in the real world but is none the less possible.

Top
#57170 - 07/19/11 09:21 PM Re: Doubt [Re: Meph9]
Lamar Offline
member


Registered: 02/03/10
Posts: 226
Loc: Alabama
I think this is an important point. This reminds me of arguments from both theists and atheists who claim that they know 100% that there is or is not some form of a god. What this implies is godlike omniscience and throws away doubt. Satanic Atheism is unlike this all-knowing mentality and says that we cannot be 100% certain that a god exists or not, yet it takes the stance that it is highly doubtful in todays society. However, it does not throw away the possibility that there COULD be. That kind of information is currently unknowable.

Doubt is cherishable from a Satanic perspective. Such wonderful and negative connotations are evoked in one simple word.

I think that LaVey said it best, that the truth has rarely set anyone free. It is only doubt which will bring mental emancipation.

Top
#57191 - 07/20/11 01:26 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Lamar]
a. don Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 60
If I'm not mistaken, every significant affirmation must be falsifiable (I believe there is a post about logical evidentiality that in this case would offer a significant light).

In other words, even the most acknowledgeable scientific law could go wrong, not necessarily that it will if it has been proven and can be replicated. Otherwise, why would we even need evidence for anything??

On the other hand, there comes a point where one must resolve his doubt for the sake of his own sanity (in a more practical note). You can only be skeptical about something for so long, especially if you've spent your time gathering evidence, and comparing points of view on the subject/matter in question.

Top
#57195 - 07/20/11 02:08 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Lamar]
Aries9 Offline
temp ban
stranger


Registered: 05/14/11
Posts: 11
God is a title, like boss or president. When people say they don't believe in god I'm kind of dumbfounded. Of course you can't believe in god if you never place the title of it upon anything. It doesn't matter if it's a mental construct, spirit, or an aluminum can.

It's even more confusing when people who say they are "Lavey" Satanists say that. It's like the chapter "Wanted! God dead or alive" in the Satanic Bible never existed. Proclaimed theistic Satanists say Lavey Satanists don't believe in anything yet here it is......

"It is a popular misconception that the Satanist does not believe in god. The concept of "god" as interpreted by man, has been so varied throughout the ages, that the Satanist simply accepts the definition which suits him best"

I never seen a difference between a "Lavey" Satanist or a theistic Satanist. I've never seen Satanism as a belief system although I wouldn't say it is an absence of belief either. To me Satanism is a philosophy and practice and is a window to who we are. Spirituality is a part of human nature that I indulge in as well, with one exception. I make the rules for myself instead of being a victim of another human's dogma.

I know of nothing that I would place the title of "god" upon, either existent or imaginary.


Edited by Aries9 (07/20/11 02:14 AM)

Top
#57196 - 07/20/11 03:15 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Aries9]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
Extreme skepticism can illuminate how we explain our own brain to ourselves.

If we are talking of Satanism in LaVey terms and theistic terms then I am not as such, a Satanist. There is no atheistic Satanism or theistic Satanism, for such is to worship a demiurge. There is no desire to be worshipped from a world rejected, even though the foolish demiurge is all pervasive, defiance is key. The expression of a self rejecting the offered universe and attempting to evolve into something more. Anticosmic Satanism is the highest principle of Satan (Self) as the adversary of God (Universe).

If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. And as far as doubt goes, it's polarisation may be considered extreme nihilism, the state of the anticosmic paradigm. In a simple way, the substance of creation (demiurgic prison) was originally from the essence of freedom (Chaos).

And although the light is fleeting, the individual has the power to look into the shadow cast by the light of the Universe (God), The individual has the key to experiencing the pull toward the sinister emanation within, wherein lies the unmanifest, the essence of freedom (Chaos) the substance of all potentia which emerged the creation.

Such philosophical and ideological drive hosts the anticosmic impulse against the mundane sensory existence for which we are tricked to glance at by a bastard demiurge. It's destruction bares testament to the strength of the Self.

Annihilatory apotheosis.
_________________________


Top
#57199 - 07/20/11 04:20 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Hegesias]
Aries9 Offline
temp ban
stranger


Registered: 05/14/11
Posts: 11
 Originally Posted By: Hegesias
The expression of a self rejecting the offered universe and attempting to evolve into something more. Anticosmic Satanism is the highest principle of Satan (Self) as the adversary of God (Universe).


This made me curious. The first part is rejection of the offered universe. What do you believe offered it exactly? Secondly the evolving into something more part. Evolving based on who or what's perception? Evolution is a process where things adapt to their environment but what you are talking about is rejecting that process to somehow move "beyond" it yet still call it evolving? The term "anti-cosmic Satanism" almost seems like a contradiction in terms in that regard. As a Satanist I never have seen myself as an adversary of the universe or nature, perhaps that is why I don't grasp this concept so well.


Edited by Aries9 (07/20/11 04:21 AM)

Top
#57200 - 07/20/11 04:28 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Aries9]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
The essence and substance of Sitra Archa and Ein Sof. If I were to explain the Sitra Archa and Ein Sof from the anticosmic paradigm, I would most certainly present the most verbose and most fragmented paradoxical antithesis, as writing such against facticity existentialism is paradoxically exactly what cannot exist. ;\)

You can understand this gobbledegook in Jungian terms as well though. This is as close a parallel I can give right now.

Occultists seem to regard shadow work as dangerous. \:D
_________________________


Top
#57555 - 07/25/11 04:47 PM Re: Doubt [Re: a. don]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
"On the other hand, there comes a point where one must resolve his doubt for the sake of his own sanity (in a more practical note). You can only be skeptical about something for so long, especially if you've spent your time gathering evidence, and comparing points of view on the subject/matter in question. "

Indeed just as the concept of doubt seperates a philosophy from a belief/religion I think the difference between insanity and philosophy can also be measured in doubt. Where as a philosophy is enhanced by doubt a full delusion is hindered by it. Insanity is the product too much doubt, it is the product of this overwhelming sense of uncertainty that reduces one's ability to enjoy life.

To a belief doubt is a curse, a sin
To a philosophy doubt is a tool or an anchor
To a delusion it is a barrier, an inescapable dark over one's entire existence

Top
#57602 - 07/26/11 07:21 PM Re: Doubt [Re: Meph9]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
Great topic, Meph9. Although Iím more about doubt than belief, both sides of the coin can lead to the same scientific problem: Both suggest interest, or subjectivism. In other words, taking a stance either way can bias the observer to the extent that he ďseesĒ what he wants to see.

Unfortunately, we donít live in an ideal world. Each of us is tainted by our own worldview, and therefore pure objectivism is a pipe dream. Ultimately, we are all driven both by desire to know the truth and by our own personal aims. The goal, if possible, is to balance the subjective and objective in such a way that we stay true to ourselves without ignoring the bigger picture.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#57617 - 07/27/11 12:09 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Meph9]
a. don Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 60
I think I must say that I totally agree with you.

Remember, though, that any significant assertion must leave room for some doubt. This is the whole "falsifiable" end of the subject. My point is, even if you are convinced of something, you must leave at the very least .01% room for doubt. This is the beauty of freedom of thought. It is the very definition of "open minded". Otherwise, one risks being in a perpetual rigid dogma straight-jacket.

Top
#57910 - 08/02/11 03:36 PM Re: Doubt [Re: a. don]
AGW Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/02/11
Posts: 10
Loc: Corpus
 Originally Posted By: a. don
My point is, even if you are convinced of something, you must leave at the very least .01% room for doubt. This is the beauty of freedom of thought. It is the very definition of "open minded". Otherwise, one risks being in a perpetual rigid dogma straight-jacket.


I've always seen "fact" as negotiable. As I'm confident many others are aware, the current laws on physics have been theoretically dis-proven through looks beyond our atmosphere into space. (I say theoretically seeing as we have not been to far-away worlds and galaxies and everywhere in-between to account for these educational failure.) As such, everything that we know in the worlds of mathematics and sciences much be put back into question. In every sense, we must doubt what has already been proven, dis-proven, re-proven, and re-dis-proven.

With all that in mind, at what point, do ya'll think, we should stop standing our ground on our beliefs we feel are 99.9% correct; is it better to allow that extra .01% in and pollute the rest or keep the 99.9% pure and neglect that hundredth?

I see it as it's better to stand your ground while taking other factor(s) into account, but not necessarily accept them and swallow them whole. The fit will topple the un-fit and, at time, one's believes are inferior to another's. Nature will always balance the players so that the playing field doesn't rest and advancement continues and prevails.
_________________________
If someone teaches you hate, it's best to return the favor through teaching them fear.

Top
#57922 - 08/03/11 02:16 AM Re: Doubt [Re: AGW]
a. don Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 60
One thing is to be reasonably convinced of something. Another is to be hell-bent on something. The difference is that in one (the first) you leave the space for the "I stand corrected", that is, for re-eveluation and re-interpretation if new evidence would necessitate that. In the other, you "stand your ground" even against valid evidence and good reason.

One denotes good mental health, the other doesn't.

The point is, you do no think in terms if I am 99.9% correct, but rather I am 100% sure, yet leave space for re-evaluation if I'm presented with the right evidence and arguments.

And BTW, theoretically, you can "theoretically" dis-prove anything that is not a scientific la, that is, if you have the right evidence. That's the beauty of rational evidentiality. However, it's a bit more complicated when it comes to scientific law: You CANNOT disprove a scientific law, you can only MODIFY it.

There's a strict procedure for a scientific theory to become a scientific law.

Top
#57924 - 08/03/11 06:57 AM Re: Doubt [Re: a. don]
Max Stirner Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/04/11
Posts: 14
Loc: Italy
 Originally Posted By: a. don
You CANNOT disprove a scientific law, you can only MODIFY it.


The only scientific laws that you cannot disprove are scientific laws which are true. But that doesn't say much, it's a mere tautology.
But you can disprove a scientifc law which is not true. More importantly, every scientif law MUST be falsifiable. Otherwise it's not science.

 Originally Posted By: a. don
There's a strict procedure for a scientific theory to become a scientific law.


There is no such thing since a scientific theory does never become a scientific law.


Edited by Max Stirner (08/03/11 06:58 AM)

Top
#57925 - 08/03/11 07:20 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Max Stirner]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
A scientific "law" is only true within a specific context. The moment you leave that context, something which was true, might no longer be.

D.

Top
#57926 - 08/03/11 07:53 AM Re: Doubt [Re: Diavolo]
Max Stirner Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/04/11
Posts: 14
Loc: Italy
Of course, I have no objection to that at all. But my point still stands.

Edited by Max Stirner (08/03/11 07:53 AM)

Top
Page 1 of 4 1234>


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

Generated in 0.028 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.