Page 4 of 10 « First<23456>Last »
Topic Options
#7309 - 04/06/08 01:19 PM Re: Atheism [Re: WyntyrZyphyr]
Stag Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/20/07
Posts: 84
 Quote:
From a theistic standpoint there is God, his will carried out through the Messiah and anything not of the law fulfilled by the Messiah is not of God, and therefore Satanic.


Back up a sec... what justification do you have for these assertions? I may be wrong, but you seem guilty of the very same error I mentioned to TornadoCreator further up this thread; that of extrapolating subjective states beyond their remit.

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on the source and nature of your theistic beliefs? You say things for you are "absolute" -- from where exactly do you derive this certainty?

Stag

Top
#7311 - 04/06/08 01:31 PM Re: Atheism [Re: WyntyrZyphyr]
LUCIFERIFIC Offline
active member


Registered: 02/01/08
Posts: 629
Loc: CA
 Originally Posted By: WyntyrZyphyr
 Originally Posted By: LUCIFERIFIC

Is it just me, or do you not make any sense to yourself either?
What if a Buddhist used his free will to be a buddhist? Or a Muslim used his free will to practice Islam? Or a guy used his free will to be a Christian? Are all these people doing what "Satan" wants anyway? If so then why even be a Satanist. That's like over 4 billion people doing what Satan wants... and the results have been pretty shitty for the past 2000 years. Satan must really suck at what he's doing?


From a theistic standpoint there is God, his will carried out through the Messiah and anything not of the law fulfilled by the Messiah is not of God, and therefore Satanic. That is the whole point of Theistic Satanism, if the Christians are right we are all going to hell anyways, so why not venerate Lord Satan and live as gods? See for you things are relative, while for me things are absolute. People who exercise free will are just contributing to the Satanic Age, yet they are not necessarily Satanist.


Besides the excellent question Stag asked, which i'm interested to see how you answer; what in your private little subjective mind is Satanism? What is a "Satanist" exactly? One who follows the Law and Will of Lord Satan? I just want to try to understand you better... do you think aliens in some distant galaxy far, far, away are also pawns caught up in this struggle between Jesus and Satan too?? How do you know "Lord Satan" is real, as in he has a reality outside your mind? Does he talk to you?

Kayla


Edited by LUCIFERIFIC (04/06/08 01:36 PM)
_________________________
Lux Ex Tenebris
Lux Lucet Ex Orientis


~~352~~


Top
#7425 - 04/08/08 04:09 PM Re: Atheism [Re: rubaestellae]
PansGirl_v2.3 Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/18/08
Posts: 30
Loc: TX U.S.
Oh wow, okay, I was misunderstood. I know TC meant it as a sarcastic joke. I was talking about actual rituals some people use, and used the joke as an example. Sorry, I have a way of wording things that make people confused...
_________________________
352-Inksie

The love of many is the envy of all.

Top
#58819 - 09/03/11 11:13 PM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
magnitudo Offline
banned
stranger


Registered: 07/22/11
Posts: 33
Loc: Italy
I believe in Satan and I know that God exists. Then I can decide to make good think for the people and live in peace my happy material world of happiness. And I love the concerts, the party and live in peace...
_________________________
magnitudo magic peace friendship

Top
#58825 - 09/04/11 06:03 AM Re: Atheism [Re: magnitudo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3023
 Originally Posted By: magnitudo
I believe in Satan and I know that God exists. Then I can decide to make good think for the people and live in peace my happy material world of happiness. And I love the concerts, the party and live in peace...

This is the 4th post I encounter of you which actually makes no sense.
Try reading and getting a grip of what the current mindset is here. People like you have gone the way of the dodo here.

But I prefer you to leave.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#59460 - 09/24/11 11:13 PM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Red Dragon76 Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/10/11
Posts: 17
Loc: Wisconsin
I simply cannot act on what I believe. I have to act on what I know or can find out to know. I will not know or find out until gods show themselves to me or I walk into a forest clearing and see them having a picnic eating ambrosia. Until I know they exist, then they don't. The mythologies are entertaining and I adore the symbolism. However, certitude might be a stretch as far as Atheism goes. Deities could very well go around making worlds and leaving them to their own devices, watching and never interfering. But I can't worry about what I can't find out or verify right now today. I have
to live life as it is, not as I hope or imagine it is. So I have to go with Atheist until something shows me otherwise.
_________________________
"The superior human leads by example and does not require validation within a menial pecking order."

Top
#60090 - 10/16/11 04:13 PM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: TornadoCreator
Here is a hint, you are either atheist or theist, you are one or the other... you can't be both, they're mutually exclusive, however you HAVE to be one of them. Agnostic is not an option, to be agnostic is to admit that you don't know, as no-one knows EVERYONE is agnostic, if you don't activally believe in a deity or deities yet are open to the possibility you are still an atheist, you're just an agnostic atheist.


I use the following definitions:

antitheist = someone who believes that (an external) god does not exist

Atheist = someone who does not believe that (an external) god does exist

agnostic = someone who is not sure if (an external) god does exist

deist = someone who believes that an eternal god exists (or existed) and created this world, but is not interacting with this world anymore

theist = someone who believes that (an external) god does exist

autotheist = someone who believes that he or she is his or her own god

Now it should be obvious that a (LaVeyan) satanist is an autotheist and an antitheist, Atheist, deist or agnostic at the same time, depending on his believes whether an external god does exist or not. But the main point imho is: The existence or nonexistence of an external god is not relevant for the way a satanist lives his life, for he sees himself as his highest authority.


Edited by Iskander (10/16/11 04:21 PM)

Top
#60093 - 10/16/11 06:38 PM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2367
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
How you answer this question simply follows from how you define the terms.

The usual definition of "God" is the Hebraic sourpuss, in which case it's easy to call him out, see nothing happen, and dismiss him. [This is the whole point of a Black Mass, whether full-zoot ceremonial or just casually breaking one of the 10 Cs.]

Or you can identify "God"/the neteru with the Objective Universe (OU), in which case it gets more interesting. As discussed elsewhere in 600C, as soon as you kick the Big Bang boobs off the bus, you don't need a "point of time/matter/energy origin" any more than you need their conclusion: matter/antimatter/energy extends infinitely into the past as well as the future.

What you do need is establishment and enforcement of natural law, e.g. the consistency of the behavior of these components. It is this principle of consistency (which I have elsewhere referred to as a "field phenomenon") which is everywhere and continuously in evidence, and can legitimately be called "God"/neteru accordingly.

This field is not conscious in the sense that individual humans are conscious. It is our separate consciousnesses (collectively the Gift of Set) which provides us with the juxtaposition to apprehend the OU and recognize "God"/the neteru. If you were not so separate and juxtaposed, such apprehension would be impossible, for it would be indistinguishable from the totality of your existence. As it is, G/n governs your physical body - everything except your consciousness/ba/psyche/soul.

Once you've grokked the above, it's also clear that ritual worship of the OU is pointless. It is simply projecting a consciousness onto something that doesn't have [or need] it. People do this because they are afraid of their separateness/consciousness and want reassurance that it, hence they, belong in the OU. So they imagine something like themselves, but OU-size, into which they hope to be absorbed - by Grace, nirvana, flagellation, baptism, mantras, whatever. All White Magic; all an utter waste of time.

The only way that it is possible to "worship" G/n is to help the collective natural [from neter, incidentally] laws function as smoothly, harmoniously, and positively as possible within your sphere of influence. As for example keeping the oceans clean and controlling forest fires, and not human-overbreeding. So it's a Gaia kind of worship. "Sin" is when you work to break natural laws, as for instance smashing atoms that left to themselves wouldn't smash. So you get an A/H-bomb, which is arguably not what G/n intend to occur within Earth's biosphere.

Of course it is the Gift of Set that not only enables our separate consciousnesses distinct from the OU, but consequently enables us to tinker with it. This is not so bad when we turn a tree into a table [though the tree might disagree], but it gets seriously FUBAR when we light off H-bombs or cesspool the oceans. Hence all questions of "morality" really just pertain to what we discretionarily permit ourselves to do.

So "God" exists, as do separate consciousnesses (Satanists or Setians, depending upon philosophical precision) whether one likes it or not. You can dance around this reality in all sorts of dress-up ways, but here you are nevertheless.

The only irony is that "all of the above" is really very simple once one wakes up to it. The amount of wasted effort, human grief, and comic opera caused by the unawakened (= prisoners in Plato's cave) over the millennia is maniacal.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60096 - 10/16/11 09:35 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1631
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
So "God" exists, as do separate consciousnesses (Satanists or Setians, depending upon philosophical precision) whether one likes it or not. You can dance around this reality in all sorts of dress-up ways, but here you are nevertheless.


While I agree that "God" may be defined in a non-personal and cosmological fashion, I argue that separate consciousnesses are simply another set of chaotic variables in the cosmic equation. What we think of as "individual consciousness" is merely our base instincts filtered through social conditioning and external stimuli. There is nothing so special about human awareness that demands an essential separation from the objective universe, let alone calling it a "gift".
_________________________
«Recibe, ˇoh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60098 - 10/16/11 11:02 PM Re: Atheism [Re: The Zebu]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3706
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Pat Robertson
"Sin" is when you work to break natural laws, as for instance smashing atoms that left to themselves wouldn't smash."


Utter nonsense.

'Smashing an atom' is a matter of harnessing an understanding of natural laws, and bringing that understanding into reality. You could just as easily say the beaver sins when it dams a river. After all, those trees wouldn't just fall like that on their own, right? The difference is only of scale, not of kind.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60100 - 10/17/11 12:41 AM Re: Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
dust-e sheytoon Offline
member


Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 206
Loc: NYC
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
...This field is not conscious in the sense that individual humans are conscious. It is our separate consciousnesses (collectively the Gift of Set) which provides us with the juxtaposition to apprehend the OU and recognize "God"/the neteru. If you were not so separate and juxtaposed, such apprehension would be impossible, for it would be indistinguishable from the totality of your existence. As it is, G/n governs your physical body - everything except your consciousness/ba/psyche/soul...

...The only way that it is possible to "worship" G/n is to help the collective natural [from neter, incidentally] laws function as smoothly, harmoniously, and positively as possible within your sphere of influence. As for example keeping the oceans clean and controlling forest fires, and not human-overbreeding. So it's a Gaia kind of worship..."Sin" is when you work to break natural laws, as for instance smashing atoms that left to themselves wouldn't smash...


Here here, I agree wholeheartedly to all the above except the last sentence. If the following article is true, then nuclear fission can occur naturally: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gues...western-africa/
"Despite their modest power output, the Gabon nuclear reactors are remarkable because they spontaneously began operating around two billion years ago, and they continued to operate in a stable manner for up to one million years. Further, at the Gabon reactors many of the radioactive products of the nuclear fission have been safely contained for two billion years, providing evidence that long-term geologic storage of nuclear waste is feasible." It almost sounds like a nuclear energy press release, however, so I'm taking the article with a grain of salt for now.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
...Of course it is the Gift of Set that not only enables our separate consciousnesses distinct from the OU, but consequently enables us to tinker with it. This is not so bad when we turn a tree into a table [though the tree might disagree], but it gets seriously FUBAR when we light off H-bombs or cesspool the oceans. Hence all questions of "morality" really just pertain to what we discretionarily permit ourselves to do....


I'm definitely not happy about the Indian Head nuclear plant having been built on top of/near to two earthquake fault lines, just a short distance from New York City. If reports of weapons that exploit fault lines are true, this is an added terrorism hazard that may not have been taken into consideration when Indian Head was planned. Plus, I've read that part of the reason that the Fukushima reactors experienced such problems is that they were infected with Stuxnet. I'm wondering if Stuxnet is in Indian Head also. The lease for the reactor is up for renewal soon, and Gov. Cuomo is against it, but Pres. Obama is reportedly pressing on behalf of the nuclear energy industry. I'm doing what I can directly as a customer, having changed the electricity supplied to my apartment to come from windpower generated upstate. And I want to buy a window-sized portable solar power generator to run my computer.

Dr. Aquino, you have government experience and you know so much about electricity. Do you have any advice for those of us trying to steer away from nuclear and carbon based energy?
_________________________
Fly for your lives! A great magician comes! He summons armies from the earth itself! ~ ArabianNights

Top
#60102 - 10/17/11 09:11 AM Re: Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
How you answer this question simply follows from how you define the terms.

The usual definition of "God" is the Hebraic sourpuss, in which case it's easy to call him out, see nothing happen, and dismiss him. [This is the whole point of a Black Mass, whether full-zoot ceremonial or just casually breaking one of the 10 Cs.]

Or you can identify "God"/the neteru with the Objective Universe (OU), in which case it gets more interesting. As discussed elsewhere in 600C, as soon as you kick the Big Bang boobs off the bus, you don't need a "point of time/matter/energy origin" any more than you need their conclusion: matter/antimatter/energy extends infinitely into the past as well as the future.


I think there is a third option: You can identify "God" with the collective spirit of all people who believe in him / her / it, a pool of psychic energy if you will. This corresponds with the thesis "Man created god in his own image", like Xenophanes or Ludwig Feuerbach said.

If this is true, the level where god exists would be neither the SU nor the OU, but a pattern of social interaction.


Edited by Iskander (10/17/11 09:12 AM)

Top
#60103 - 10/17/11 09:46 AM Re: Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
What you do need is establishment and enforcement of natural law, e.g. the consistency of the behavior of these components. It is this principle of consistency (which I have elsewhere referred to as a "field phenomenon") which is everywhere and continuously in evidence, and can legitimately be called "God"/neteru accordingly.


To speak in egyptian terms: Wouldn`t that mean to identify "God" with "maat"? As i understood the egyptian worldview, maat is something highly vulnerable that could be manipulated through magic. As you know, the later egyptians even thoght of Set as a protector of maat who uses his raw physical power to destroy the destructive chaos (Apep), so Osiris could be reborn as Xepera each new dawn.

"God" as seen by the three dominating monotheisms created the OU, but is separated from what he created. The egyptian concept of ntr is different: "God" is one entity and many entities at the same time, a concept of internal pluralism that is established in and outside of the OU as well. (As described in Erik Hornung`s Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt, The One and the Many)


Edited by Iskander (10/17/11 09:50 AM)

Top
#60105 - 10/17/11 10:01 AM Re: Atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread


Utter nonsense.

'Smashing an atom' is a matter of harnessing an understanding of natural laws, and bringing that understanding into reality. You could just as easily say the beaver sins when it dams a river. After all, those trees wouldn't just fall like that on their own, right? The difference is only of scale, not of kind.


Maybe it's me but it does remind me an awful lot of what the monks tried to teach me at boarding school; free will "given" to us, the choice to do good or evil, the old man watching up there.

Same story, different setting. I think they call such recycling.

Top
#60106 - 10/17/11 10:10 AM Re: Atheism [Re: Diavolo]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
Well, i think we all agree that an atomic explosion is something that is not occuring under normal circumstances. Causing such an explosion is a "sin" in the satanic sense of an activity that reduces the quality of your own life.
Top
Page 4 of 10 « First<23456>Last »


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

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