Page all of 10 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#6410 - 03/26/08 11:03 AM Atheism
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
Now, this is something that comes up again and again here. I tend to assume that everyone here is Atheist simply because as I see it Satanism is a natural progression from active Atheism, it almost seems to me that Atheism is a prerequesit of Satanism, (obviously I'm not talking about "traditional Satanism" because let's face it, that's just nonsence anyway).

So what is my point. Well it's simply this. It's about time that we didn't make these assumptions anymore, because I imagine (read: hope) I'm not the only person doing so. So my question to you guys is simple. Who here identifies themselves as an Atheist, and who identifies themselves as a theist.

This is something I posted on a forum before and I had more people reply "agnostic" or "don't know" than the two options given. The members of this forum are likely more intelligent so the rest of this post is likely unneeded but I'll post it anyway.

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.

Look at it like this. Some people have blue eyes. Everyone either has blue eyes or does not have blue eyes. EVERYONE falls into one of those two catergories, no-one falls into both, no-one falls into neither.

Anyone who actively claims to be neither Atheist or theist will be added to my ignore list, if you are desperate to be an idiot choose another topic.

Hopefully this will clear things up, and will give people some perspective on eachothers beliefs.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#6416 - 03/26/08 12:21 PM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


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

 Originally Posted By: TornadoCreator
Now, this is something that comes up again and again here. I tend to assume that everyone here is atheist simply because as I see it satanism is a natural progression from active atheism, it almost seems to me that atheism is a prerequesit of satanism, (obviously I'm not talking about "traditional satanism" because let's face it, that's just nonsence anyway).

I myself for the time being am atheistic in my views this is well known… I must ask why should anyone put themselves on a list for you? After you basically saying “hey guys all theists up against the wall, time to expose your nonsense”… What makes you think any theist would respect you enough to bother to answer you honestly?

Maybe it is only that I have been here longer than you, perhaps I comprehend and retain things at a different level… Maybe it is only that I have talked to more of the old timers in chat and through PM’s than yourself but I myself have a good mental list of who is traditional and who is not… Much can be gained from actually reading the various posts and building online friendships…

On perspective…

To simplify the matter let us use your example of eye color… Reality is hazel eyes can be blue or green therefore they are both… I could be colorblind then from my perspective everyone falls into the neither category…

 Originally Posted By: TornadoCreator
Anyone who actively claims to be neither atheist or theist will be added to my ignore list, if you are desperate to be an idiot choose another topic.

I hope that was a holdover from the other site you posted this at… If not get over yourself… While I agree that someone not knowing what their belief is may be seen as ignorant or down right stupid… The ignore button it is there for a reason but to threaten with it like your some golden boy is laughable…

Peace

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

Top
#6417 - 03/26/08 12:37 PM Re: Atheism [Re: ta2zz]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
This was more because there are new people joining all the time, and I would like to know who beleives in a god and who doesn't as it's often the basis of our discussions here and thus a bad thing to make assumptions of.

As for the ignore button, I've yet to use it, but someone with such ignorance that they don't even know what they themselves beleive should not even be here. My comment remains the same, I mean it as it sounds.

If someone disagrees with me I would not ignore them, if someone is clearly so ignorant that they don't understand basic principles, why not add them to the ignore list... in all honesty though I'd likely not bother, as I'm a lazy sod, I'd just ignore each post individually.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#6421 - 03/26/08 01:50 PM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Stag Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/20/07
Posts: 84
 Quote:
This was more because there are new people joining all the time, and I would like to know who beleives in a god and who doesn't as it's often the basis of our discussions here and thus a bad thing to make assumptions of.


Depending on your definition of the word "God", I could describe myself as either an Atheist, or a theist. In some senses, God exists, in others He doesn't. It's a poetic term with a great deal of cultural resonance, and it has its uses.

Of course, "objectively" speaking, the question is meaningless, but that doesn't mean we can't have fun with it.

Stag

Top
#6422 - 03/26/08 01:53 PM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Kon Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/21/08
Posts: 86
Loc: Berlin, Germany
I believe the word "God" or "god", is definitive enough, "deity" or the like to be exclusive holds on "religion", which is another word that is simply a pretext anecdote or justification for murder or genocide.
Yes the word "god" holds meaning to me.

In fairness: omnipotence, and omnipresence are not found. (The words meaning unequaled, unescapable) These characteristics are held by the 4 dimensions. Not by an individual human. I still would say that my take leans more to the side you defined as atheistic.


Edited by Kon (03/26/08 01:58 PM)
Edit Reason: Re word
_________________________
A God complex isn't likely to show itself.

Top
#6423 - 03/26/08 02:17 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Stag]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: Stag
Depending on your definition of the word "God", I could describe myself as either an Atheist, or a theist. In some senses, God exists, in others He doesn't. It's a poetic term with a great deal of cultural resonance, and it has its uses.

Of course, "objectively" speaking, the question is meaningless, but that doesn't mean we can't have fun with it.

Stag


Ok. Maybe I was a little vauge, but I assumed it was self explainatory. I'll define what I mean anyway.

By "God" or "Deity" I mean simply an intelligent being that created the world/universe etc. Not of any specific religion, but simply an intelligent conscious creator that decided to create everything. It doesn't have to be infalable, omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent, it doesn't even have to be just one god or diety.

Simply, do you or do you not believe that there is a God of some kind. If you do you are a theist, is not you are an Atheist... if you've never given it any thought you are also an Atheist.

If you are specifically opposed to the idea of a god that is different, that is antitheism, but an antitheist is still also an Atheist.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#6427 - 03/26/08 03:12 PM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Stag Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/20/07
Posts: 84
 Quote:
By "God" or "Deity" I mean simply an intelligent being that created the world/universe etc.

Each of us inhabits a subjective universe of our own creation, shaped to a greater or lesser degree by our culture and other experiences. In this sense, each and everyone of us is a God.

However, speaking of "God" as though it had some meaning outside of our own perception is nonsensical. In this sense I am an "Atheist".

God is a metaphor, but the metaphor is real.

Stag

Top
#6430 - 03/26/08 04:13 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Stag]
Sinistar Offline
member


Registered: 10/07/07
Posts: 174
Loc: New York City
I wouldn't call myself an Atheist, I do tend to toe the line between the modern and traditional concepts. There's still many things beyond our grasp that I'm not going to pretend to have a clue about so I'm definitely not an Atheist.









Edited by Sinistar (03/26/08 04:13 PM)
Edit Reason: clarification
_________________________



Top
#6432 - 03/26/08 05:28 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Sinistar]
Kon Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/21/08
Posts: 86
Loc: Berlin, Germany
Limelight among satanists, is not usually something appreciated.
_________________________
A God complex isn't likely to show itself.

Top
#6469 - 03/27/08 11:52 AM Re: Atheism [Re: Kon]
Sinistar Offline
member


Registered: 10/07/07
Posts: 174
Loc: New York City
I don't know what you're getting at, please clarify.
_________________________



Top
#6470 - 03/27/08 12:06 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Sinistar]
Kon Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/21/08
Posts: 86
Loc: Berlin, Germany
Some things are better left unspoken is all, just supporting what you cared to share.
_________________________
A God complex isn't likely to show itself.

Top
#6474 - 03/27/08 01:17 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Kon]
Pan420 Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/05/08
Posts: 72
Loc: New Mexico
As a new person to this site, I would like to say that I believe myself to be Atheist. My way of thinking is based on my life experiences. I have never felt the strong presence of someone or something looking after me. I hear religious people say they can feel a higher power watching them. I have been in the worst predictaments and no higher power saved me. Nothing. I was once a devoted christian follower. I went to church like four times a week. I mean i was the ultimate believer. But in time I started to see the lies the christian church has, the faults, just the way they are you know. And as I started looking away from their point of view I began to realize what I truely believe in. That there is no god above or some pointy horned devil with a pitch fork running loose. We are here through evolution and accident. We have only our selves to blame for our ignorance. And to look to a higher power and use him as a scape goat is popsterous. So I believe in myself as my own god. But to asnwer TC yes I am an Atheist.
_________________________
Pan420

"Use your fist and not your mouth",
Marilyn Manson

Top
#6487 - 03/27/08 04:32 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Pan420]
PansGirl_v2.3 Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/18/08
Posts: 30
Loc: TX U.S.
I, like Pan420, also consider myself my own god, so TornadoCreator, would you consider that Atheist or theist? If I believe myself to be omnipotent and all that jazz, that I can change my future and else, would you consider me a theist? Or because I don't believe in a force outside the self would that be Atheist? It's a fine line for me and being flexible, I can cross it anytime I want... Can you categorize me now?
_________________________
352-Inksie

The love of many is the envy of all.

Top
#6498 - 03/27/08 07:39 PM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Equilibrio Offline
pledge


Registered: 10/21/07
Posts: 56
Loc: Missouri
I consider myself an Atheist, even though I technically fit the agnostic tag. Even Richard Dawkins rates himself as a "de facto" Atheist on his own atheism scale . (A scale of 1 - 7; 7 being "Strong Atheist") Dawkins rates himself a 6.8, and I would comfortably place myself right about there as well.

 Quote:
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


 Quote:
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.


Are you saying that one can't be both, yet one can be both? That seems to be a matter of semantics and linguistic generalizations resulting in a false dilemma, as what we believe and what we know are two totally separate balls of wax, my man.

Top
#6522 - 03/28/08 04:45 AM Re: Atheism [Re: PansGirl_v2.3]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: PansGirl_v2.3
I, like Pan420, also consider myself my own god, so TornadoCreator, would you consider that atheist or theist? If I believe myself to be omnipotent and all that jazz, that I can change my future and else, would you consider me a theist? Or because I don't believe in a force outside the self would that be atheist? It's a fine line for me and being flexible, I can cross it anytime I want... Can you categorize me now?


As the being is yourself you would be an Atheist. Although people talk about this "I am my own God" stuff, they mean it poetically, they mean they have control over their own destiny to a greater or lesser degree depending on variables. Very few believe they are actually gods with the ability to change the world by shear will. The only people who claim this are philosophy students trying to make themselves feel intelligent by spouting crap about subjective universes made up of our perception (damn I hate philosophy), or the truly delusional.

As for equilibrio's point at the end of his post. You're misinterpreting my post. I not only agree with you, if you re-read you'll find we said the same things just worded differently.

I said you cannot be Atheist and Theist at the same time. You ARE Atheist and Agnostic at the same time. Everyone is Agnostic on this particular subject because no-one knows if a god exists. Read my posts carefully in future and these misunderstanding won't happen.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#6541 - 03/28/08 02:05 PM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Stag Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/20/07
Posts: 84
 Quote:
The only people who claim this are philosophy students trying to make themselves feel intelligent by spouting crap about subjective universes made up of our perception (damn I hate philosophy)

Oh TC, can't help but think you're talking about me here. \:\) (though I'm neither a philosopher, nor a student).

Care to expand upon your disagreement? The distinction between subjective and pseudo-objective realities is a useful one in my opinion.

"Gods" and other such metaphysical entities exist as a shorthand for certain subjective phenomena, this does not make them any less 'real'. This only becomes problematic when people extrapolate this into the pseudo-objective, mistakenly assuming that my "god" is the same as yours -- ergo, "religion".

Stag

Top
#6550 - 03/28/08 06:35 PM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Equilibrio Offline
pledge


Registered: 10/21/07
Posts: 56
Loc: Missouri
Sorry for the misunderstanding, TC.

And for the record, I can also probably be described as anti theist, as I find the very concept of an external (and droolingly anthropomorphic) consciousness/creator to be not only insipid, but damaging as well. (Although I'm willing to give some of the more hedonistic Roman deities another shot.) ;\)

Even claiming to "be one's own god" seems to me to be a kind of cheapening of ones spiritual essence and may serve only to limit one's potential to the existing theistic frameworks.

Top
#6559 - 03/28/08 07:15 PM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Kon Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/21/08
Posts: 86
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: TornadoCreator


As the being is yourself you would be an Atheist. Although people talk about this "I am my own God" stuff, they mean it poetically, they mean they have control over their own destiny to a greater or lesser degree depending on variables. Very few believe they are actually gods with the ability to change the world by shear will. The only people who claim this are philosophy students trying to make themselves feel intelligent by spouting crap about subjective universes made up of our perception (damn I hate philosophy), or the truly delusional.

As for equilibrio's point at the end of his post. You're misinterpreting my post. I not only agree with you, if you re-read you'll find we said the same things just worded differently.

I said you cannot be Atheist and Theist at the same time. You ARE Atheist and Agnostic at the same time. Everyone is Agnostic on this particular subject because no-one knows if a god exists. Read my posts carefully in future and these misunderstanding won't happen.


Ok, if we all read what you wrote here, conceivably we all failed, excuse the majority if what our beliefs cater to are not what yours particularly do. As far down as I've read I've seen nothing to disprove anyone, you are actually coming off to me as agreeable, none of us are falsifying information, it is simply our context with which we relay our opinions and debates. Now, I for one continually will seek a new mind opening discussion, proving you're argumentative and we're not will only make you look like an asshole, IF someone were to view this who had less perception of what might lay beyond the boundaries of this life. (ie. a n00b) Now what you just superfluously spouted as a philosophical stance I read as something I can summarize like this: "Our entire life on this earth, inside the 4 dimensions, is lived by the entirety of the world in the spirit realm" , "we've never actually walked a sidewalk, or seen stained concrete, bled, or felt pain with the exception of what we lived out in our spiritual walkthrough." Yeah....somebody that's that distorted welllll. You know, I think I would give Lady Luck the chance any time of day, as for hedonism *cough
If it hurts to reply, by all means, grab an advil because I just popped one and I feel my spirit is less troubled now.
_________________________
A God complex isn't likely to show itself.

Top
#6596 - 03/29/08 06:08 AM Re: Atheism [Re: Stag]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: Stag
 Quote:
The only people who claim this are philosophy students trying to make themselves feel intelligent by spouting crap about subjective universes made up of our perception (damn I hate philosophy)

Oh TC, can't help but think you're talking about me here. \:\) (though I'm neither a philosopher, nor a student).

Care to expand upon your disagreement? The distinction between subjective and pseudo-objective realities is a useful one in my opinion.

"Gods" and other such metaphysical entities exist as a shorthand for certain subjective phenomena, this does not make them any less 'real'. This only becomes problematic when people extrapolate this into the pseudo-objective, mistakenly assuming that my "god" is the same as yours -- ergo, "religion".

Stag


If you believe you have the power to alter the world through shear will then yes this applies to you, however again I think I'm suffering from being less articulate than I like. People often read wrong meaning into my posts and I'm starting to wonder if it's not just the way it's written causing the confusion.

I personally hate philosophy. All philosophical arguments I have ever been a part in consist of various bouts of reductio ad absurdum until we reach a point where everyone is agreeing that everything is subjective, impossible to understand and the argument has become so fucking abstract that we're now debating over whether or not we exist in an objective universe when the debate started over the moral implications of abortion. It's pseudo-intelligence that I find insulting. When your point is so unimportant or abstract that it holds no bearing on the universe you no longer have a point, most philosophical points RELY on the argument becoming nothing but abstract.

Hopefully people will understand why I dislike philosophy now.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#6597 - 03/29/08 07:11 AM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Stag Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/20/07
Posts: 84
I understand the meaning of your OP, I just thought it might be interesting to question some of the underlying assumptions implicit in the use of the terms "Atheist" and "theist" -- and by extension the nature of "God".

I also appreciate your stated dislike of philosophy. All too often, philosophers make the mistake of thinking that the universe is made up of "words", and if only we could find all the right "words" to explain it, we'd have finally figured it all out. Like you, I have little time for this sort of meaningless sophistry.

I am a firm proponent in the scientific process, because, well -- it works. Nevertheless, we should acknowledge that it has its limits -- namely that particular sphere of our experience which is amenable to the empirical process; the "pseudo-objective", if you will. The rest of our experiences; our values, our ethics, our sense of meaning and so on lie beyond the reach of pure science. Something has to address this gap, you can call this a 'philosophy' if you want.

Religious language can sometimes be useful in this regard -- By putting things in terms of "God" or "Satan" etc., we can work to better our understanding of ourselves and our place within the universe.

Stag

Top
#6601 - 03/29/08 09:30 AM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
 Originally Posted By: TornadoCreator
All philosophical arguments I have ever been a part in consist of various bouts of reductio ad absurdum until we reach a point where everyone is agreeing that everything is subjective, impossible to understand and the argument has become so fucking abstract that we're now debating over whether or not we exist in an objective universe when the debate started over the moral implications of abortion.


LOL, that's a gentle debate in my experience TC.
Many people are extremely reluctant to admit that their opinions are 'subjective', particularly where 'right and wrong' are concerned.
In my experience, moral debates are more likely to take an ad hominem turn, and turn into a rant about how much of a fucking prick people are who hold opposing views, how 'decent people' always agree with certain moral dogmas, and how people who don't agree necessarily lack moral fibre/are immature/mentally ill/weird/evil, etc. etc. etc.....

This seems to be the only 'argument' theists have against Atheism: Without a belief in God, there can be no absolute right and wrong, so everything is permitted, and you might as well rape, steal and kill everyone in sight.

To many theists, such a fear overrides the fear of being 'intellectually dishonest'.
As far as this argument is concerned - yes, it is intellectually dishonest. But thanks to the theists' circular logic - thinking like this is preferable to abandoning absolute moral codes which rest on the notion of god...

Top
#6764 - 03/30/08 06:08 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Meq]
Kon Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/21/08
Posts: 86
Loc: Berlin, Germany
Valid points Mequa, I don't deny you have some experience in this kind of rhetoric, though this redundant "spiral" you've chosen to comment on is what we all aimed to dissipate with our posts. Proof is not in vain, unless the forger is caught. You've managed to juggle a bit of what we all said, and attempted to summarize, but it's not that easy or simple. The reason religion calls itself religion is because it isn't just a philosophy. We all know how redundant and sometimes chaotically contradictory religion can be, but I also know this about it aside from it being the number one calling card of a justifiable murder or military onslaught, it's an attempt to starve out philosophical concept with fact.

Forget about subjective, right and wrong is definable by anything and everything you've chosen to believe, why don't I just tow whatever you say around with me, and then we can start calling you a preacher.

_________________________
A God complex isn't likely to show itself.

Top
#6856 - 03/31/08 03:43 PM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Pan420 Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/05/08
Posts: 72
Loc: New Mexico
Has anyone here actually seen a god, or any trace of a diety? I hear from people that claim to be Satanists and they claim to have invoked an infernal god and they apppeared to them. Can this be true? If so then how do I go about it?
_________________________
Pan420

"Use your fist and not your mouth",
Marilyn Manson

Top
#6860 - 03/31/08 04:57 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Pan420]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
No it's not true. They have not invoked an infernal god. You can experience meeting an infernal god by doing the following things.

Step by step for invoking an infernal god.

1. Draw a large Pentagram on the floor in a mix of red sands and salt.
2. Light sandalwood incense at each of the 5 points.
3. Say "Appear To Me, My Lord Lucifer" in Latin.
4. Consume a large quantity of mushrooms, obtainable from my friend Bob for a set price.

Please Note: Bob's prices are high, but remember these mushrooms are magic, and used for raising demons or gods.

In short, no a deity has never manifested. If it has I defy it now. Show yourself to me... prove you exist if you have so much as a drop of the power these psycho's claim....

....nope never showed himself.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#6925 - 04/01/08 12:51 AM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Pan420 Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/05/08
Posts: 72
Loc: New Mexico
nice. Well like i always say I'll believe it if I can prove it to scientificly. Untill that day yeah I'll take your word for it.
_________________________
Pan420

"Use your fist and not your mouth",
Marilyn Manson

Top
#7186 - 04/04/08 03:47 PM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
PansGirl_v2.3 Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/18/08
Posts: 30
Loc: TX U.S.
Sorry, but I'm a little confused (I admit, I haven't been doing my homework). The kind of Satanism that involved rituals similar to the one TC mentioned, is that Laveyan or Luciferian, or what?

Edited by PansGirl_v2.3 (04/04/08 03:52 PM)
_________________________
352-Inksie

The love of many is the envy of all.

Top
#7200 - 04/04/08 07:14 PM Re: Atheism [Re: PansGirl_v2.3]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
The fact that I can't tell if you're joking PanGirl makes me sad....
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#7203 - 04/04/08 07:26 PM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
Why should it make you sad TornadoCreator? Are you tying to shift focus from the fact that you more than likely made up the ritual and don't actully know? Did you actually DO this ritual? Or did you just type it out and threw on the ending for good measure?

Answer the girls question. You are very quick to throw the power and insight to be gained by ritual away, but what experience do you actually have with it?

Zeph
_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass -
It's about learning to dance in the rain.


Top
#7208 - 04/04/08 08:13 PM Re: Atheism [Re: ZephyrGirl]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
Ok... Now I'm truly worried. PanGirl is kinda new here but you Zeph, you've been here a long time. If you honestly didn't notice that the "ritual" I described was so blatantly a sarcastic response hinting at the taking of the drug magic mushrooms in order for you to hallucinate and thus see an infernal god then I'm lost due to the pity I feel for this forum right now. If you where being equally sarcastic... perhaps we should stop sarcasm on the forum, it doesn't transition well.

Let's get this straight people. Magic isn't real! Dark gods and demons are not real! You cannot summon an infernal creature to do your bidding. This world is not 'dungeons and dragons'. Grow up. Stop deluding yourself. You're as bad as the damn theists now and you're polluting the word Satanism if you actually think the rituals used in Satanism are anything more than a fucking joke.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#7211 - 04/04/08 08:43 PM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
rubaestellae Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/13/08
Posts: 14
Loc: Australia
It strikes me as rather odd that someone who confesses the possibility of aliens would say that the idea of something existing that doesn't share the same manifestation as our own bodies is completely fabrication. I don't pro port to know the ins and outs of the universe but I wouldn't be so bold to assume that there is an impossibility for things to exist in a different capacity as ourselves.
_________________________
ciotóg

Top
#7214 - 04/04/08 09:44 PM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


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

The practice of magic is a personal perspective.

Science is magic defined.
Magic may be undefined science.

What others do, you might not do, but where others get results, you do not.

I get results.

How I get them, and how others get their results thats for another post...

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



Top
#7223 - 04/05/08 01:31 AM Re: Atheism [Re: PansGirl_v2.3]
peoplewatching Offline
lurker


Registered: 04/03/08
Posts: 2
Thats an interesting concept, I understand what you are saying in the realms of how you define the word itself. The problem with that is when you change a meaning in some way you have a distorted view of what the words like athiest or theiest were intended to mean. If this is the case and you dont have an adjective to describe yourself, just make one up and explain it as you are asked by individuals. By your definition I would consider you an Itheist by what you have said. But thats me. I think that is a fitting title for how you described yourself. Just a thought.
Top
#7226 - 04/05/08 02:45 AM Re: Atheism [Re: peoplewatching]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
 Quote:
Let's get this straight people. Magic isn't real!


Hmmmn, you the only person saying that. Magic as I define it does most certainly exist.

As for demons etc I personally haven't tried to raise one and I do doubt they exist, however, I'm not saying that I KNOW THEY DON'T EXIST and here's the ritual I did to prove it.

Yes I got that you were being sarcastic, what I did was call you on it.

Zeph
_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass -
It's about learning to dance in the rain.


Top
#7227 - 04/05/08 02:47 AM Re: Atheism [Re: peoplewatching]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
My god people. You're actually trying to suggest to me that "things that go bump in the night" and summoning demons is real. Sure I can accept that I don't know everything, and I can't say that it's impossible however I can say with as much certainty that I say Faeries, God, The Easter Bunny, Unicorns and Santa doesn't exist that Daemons don't exist. There is not a shred of evidence for them existing. You're all going off bloody faith.

People who sit there in pentagrams, by alters, doing rituals to gain power from infernal creatures... those are simple people to pretentious for Christianity. Deluding yourself is not healthy, and anyone taking offence to this when they will condemn Christianity in another breath is the biggest hypocrite of the lot.

There is one thing I get out of any ritual. I get peace of mind, I use the idea to calm down, to express my emotions and relieve me of them so that they don't cloud my judgement or get in the way in day to day life. This, and making fun of religion, are it's ONLY purpose.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#7241 - 04/05/08 10:59 AM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Stag Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/20/07
Posts: 84
You can dismiss my earlier posts as so much philosophical garbage, or perhaps just an attempt to be obtuse for the sake of argument, but really the point I was trying make about subjective reality lies at the heart of your misunderstanding here.

 Quote:
You're actually trying to suggest to me that "things that go bump in the night" and summoning demons is real.


Well, yes -- at least in as far as something can be said to be real if it has an effect. Even the craziest delusions are real to the people having them.

Father Christmas is most certainly real to the children taking part in this particular psychodrama -- and there are, of course, certain rituals used to evoke this festive spirit; letters to Santa, mince pies & brandy left out on Christmas Eve, and so on. You could brand this 'lying to children' if you wanted to, or 'fun', depending on your disposition.

In a similar fashion, the magickian summons forth certain entities in order to produce an effect; either upon himself, or upon the world around him (essentially, these amount to the same thing). These entities do not exist in any “objective” sense, but exist as a form of shorthand for certain acausal processes -- likewise with 'God', 'Satan' and so on.

Stag

Top
#7243 - 04/05/08 11:28 AM Re: Atheism [Re: Stag]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: Stag
Well, yes -- at least in as far as something can be said to be real if it has an effect. Even the craziest delusions are real to the people having them.

This is where I became uninterested and convinced that I'm unlikely to get intelligent conversation on this topic because I knew it was going to become another philosophical argument on the subjective universe and how everything we see is only real because we perceive it well BULLSHIT!

List of things that are not real.

Santa
Tooth Fairy
Easter Bunny
Orcs & Goblins
Dragons
Unicorns
Any other mythical creature.
Ghosts
Spirits
Vampires
Werewolves
Daemons/Demons
Faeries
Angels
God
Heaven & Hell
Flying Carpets
Superheroes
Lizard People
Magic/Rituals/Spells/Magick (pretentious people who don't like spelling it the normal way do exist unfortunately)

Just because someone believes in any of the things above does not make it real. It make them stupid. Delusions do not become real just because someone happens to experience the damn delusion.

Honestly, Stag, I don't think you're stupid, however I think you're grasping at straws in an attempt to gain "pwn points" which seems to be the game everyone is playing here recently, albeit rather badly as they seem to just spout bollocks. You know none of this crap exists, so why come up with such a piss-poor reason to claim any of it does. Are you afraid of offending the occultists that love to claim they're "one with the night" that may pop in here from time to time. I'm really not.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#7244 - 04/05/08 01:12 PM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Stag Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/20/07
Posts: 84
 Quote:
I knew it was going to become another philosophical argument on the subjective universe and how everything we see is only real because we perceive it well BULLSHIT!


It's easy to call bullshit on things you don't really understand. A little harder to back up your assertions with any kind of thought or reasoning.

Reality is a function of perception. Is this not what Niels Bohr was hinting at when he said "Nothing exists until it is measured."?

Perhaps you'd care to compliment your list of things which aren't real, with one of things which are... What is your criteria for "real-ness", and can it be demonstrated to have any meaning external to perception?

Interested to hear your thoughts.

Stag

Top
#7246 - 04/05/08 02:31 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Stag]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: Stag
It's easy to call bullshit on things you don't really understand.

Or many I understand it better than you and can thus see the infuriating self righteous attitude that philosophy has as a subject. For christ sake, it's the study of abstract nonsense. Some philosophical arguments are important and hold bearing on society but when it's taken beyond a certain level it becomes nonsensical. It's only when you take philosophy further still, actually examine it under scrutiny, you realise that most of it is simply spouting nonsense.

Now kindly don't insult my intelligence, you know nothing of me, what I know, what I've studied or what qualifications I have. You have no evidence to back that I don't understand your bullshit and I'm a little sick of people playing the "I'm smarter than you" ego stroking card whenever someone disagrees with them on this forum. Everyone really needs to grow up. No-one here is the master brain, far outstripping everyone else, so everyone needs to stop acting like it, and I know I'm guilty of doing it myself to some extent.

I have had enough of philosophy, I have debated it for 5 years, and as part of what was jokingly called a qualification for 2 of those years. When it comes down to it, if I look back, so long as I was vague, abstract and confusing, I could have wrote anything on the exam paper and got a passing grade. Philosophy when it comes down to brass tacs is the skill of spouting big words in a pretty pattern to make people think you're smart and to nullify everyone else's arguments with what amounts to endless reductio as absurdum.

I refuse to engage in such debates. If your resulting argument is so abstract that proving it either way has no baring on the world around us or effect anything that would interact with our lives in any meaningful way, it is not worth arguing.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#7253 - 04/05/08 04:14 PM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Stag Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/20/07
Posts: 84
 Quote:
Some philosophical arguments are important and hold bearing on society but when it's taken beyond a certain level it becomes nonsensical.

Sorry TC, but it’s you that isn't making any sense here. Philosophy is important, except when its not, then it's all nonsense? Do you have some way of establishing when it's gone beyond this magical "certain level"? What does that even mean?

 Quote:
Now kindly don't insult my intelligence, you know nothing of me, what I know, what I've studied or what qualifications I have. You have no evidence to back that I don't understand your bullshit

I'm not here to have my ego pampered at your expense. Neither am I trolling for a rise. I'd just like you to address some of the points raised by your OP. As it is you've simply declared all "philosophy" to be "bollocks" and have refused to engage in any meaningful way. This, more than anything, demonstrates a certain lack of insight on the matter. You could at least start by saying why it is that you believe I've been talking out of my arse for this whole thread.

 Quote:
If your resulting argument is so abstract that proving it either way has no baring on the world around us or effect anything that would interact with our lives in any meaningful way, it is not worth arguing.

If someone were to experience demonic visions (delusions or otherwise) on a daily basis, do you not think this would be interacting with thier life in a "meaningful way"? Certainly somebody screaming "BULLSHIT!" in thier face is going to do little to dissuade them from the reality of thier experience.

No doubt you'll be thinking, "ahh, but couldn't this person merely be afflicted with schizophrenia?" -- which may be correct, but all you've really done is trade one set of metaphors for another. Neither is more "real" than the other.

Stag

Top
#7254 - 04/05/08 04:19 PM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
"I refuse to engage in such debates. If your resulting argument is so abstract that proving it either way has no baring on the world around us or effect anything that would interact with our lives in any meaningful way, it is not worth arguing."

You are so cute...

As stated before, magic, rites, et al are a personal perspective.
They are subjective to what the individual doing the act believes or wants the results to be.

They are meaningful to the persons and their lives in 2 simple ways...

Either it works, thus....
or
It doesn't, and you look into why.

Its okay, there are no brownie points, gold stars, or trophies awarded for practice. Actually most people seem to agree to disagree on this issue. Its not one that is wrapped up in satanic paper for everyone, its just a matter of personal preference.

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



Top
#7270 - 04/05/08 08:17 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Morgan]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
 Quote:
This is where I became uninterested and convinced that I'm unlikely to get intelligent conversation on this topic because I knew it was going to become another philosophical argument on the subjective universe and how everything we see is only real because we perceive it well BULLSHIT!


 Quote:
Deluding yourself is not healthy, and anyone taking offence to this when they will condemn Christianity in another breath is the biggest hypocrite of the lot.


 Quote:
Now kindly don't insult my intelligence, you know nothing of me, what I know, what I've studied or what qualifications I have. You have no evidence to back that I don't understand your bullshit and I'm a little sick of people playing the "I'm smarter than you" ego stroking card whenever someone disagrees with them on this forum. Everyone really needs to grow up. No-one here is the master brain, far outstripping everyone else, so everyone needs to stop acting like it, and I know I'm guilty of doing it myself to some extent.


Yes dude you are very guilty of it. Henceforth why I said in that other thread that you left Hypocrite off the list. You are always being hypocritical when it comes to how you treat the intelligence of people on this forum. People that have been studying and using the occult for probably as many years as you have been alive. I still don't understand why you're a familiar. I always have found the familiars to be worthy of the title, even if I don't agree with their views, but you dude, you, I find unworthy of the title. You IMNSHO, are an arrogant boy not long out of puberty, that's thinks his small experiences in this world make him more able to judge what is right and wrong, what is real or not than others.

The evidence that he has of you not understanding, is the fact that you actually dismiss it out of hand as being wrong. IF YOU TRULY UNDERSTOOD what he was saying you wouldn't do that. It's THAT SIMPLE.
_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass -
It's about learning to dance in the rain.


Top
#7281 - 04/06/08 01:41 AM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
WyntyrZyphyr Offline
stranger


Registered: 04/06/08
Posts: 9
Loc: Kentucky
I am a Theist, and actively believe in God and Satan in his many incarnations as well as many of the demons that joined him in his rebellion. I don't believe them to be metaphysical entities sitting on some throne in some other realm, but more ethereal within our own. My view on God is that he is a jealous, wrathful bastard that doesn't like that we became like him to know the pleasures of sin and therefore seeks to use fear tactics to make people reject Lucifer's gift. Basically, I am all about freedom, indulgence, and self preservation and I venerate the almighty Lord Satan for being the driving force for me on this path. Regardless of Atheist or Theist, if you don't worship death and live life as a zombie, then you're using your free will and doing what Satan would want anyway. Hail Satan!
_________________________
Intoxicated by the madness, I'm in love with my sadness.

Top
#7282 - 04/06/08 01:57 AM Re: Atheism [Re: WyntyrZyphyr]
LUCIFERIFIC Offline
active member


Registered: 02/01/08
Posts: 629
Loc: CA
 Originally Posted By: WyntyrZyphyr
if you don't worship death and live life as a zombie, then you're using your free will and doing what Satan would want anyway. Hail Satan!


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?
_________________________
Lux Ex Tenebris
Lux Lucet Ex Orientis


~~352~~


Top
#7297 - 04/06/08 06:37 AM Re: Atheism [Re: ZephyrGirl]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: ZephyrGirl
You IMNSHO, are an arrogant boy not long out of puberty, that's thinks his small experiences in this world make him more able to judge what is right and wrong, what is real or not than others.

You are nothing more than a hate speaker too insecure in the value of your own life to see value in anyone else's in case it supersedes your own. I pity you.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#7307 - 04/06/08 01:05 PM Re: Atheism [Re: LUCIFERIFIC]
WyntyrZyphyr Offline
stranger


Registered: 04/06/08
Posts: 9
Loc: Kentucky
 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.
_________________________
Intoxicated by the madness, I'm in love with my sadness.

Top
#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: 3138
 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
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
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: 1646
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, ¡oh 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: 3882
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
#60107 - 10/17/11 10:17 AM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Come on, let's try to keep the religious crap out of Satanism.

As such, drinking or doing drugs is also a sin since it evidently also reduces the quality of your life. Even driving a car does.

Top
#60108 - 10/17/11 10:40 AM Re: Atheism [Re: Diavolo]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
Satanism is a religion, so "religious crap" is inherent to it.

Perhaps you have a problem with the term "sin". Well, call it "vice" or "counterproductive behavior" if you will. As a matter of fact, there ARE things a wise satanist should not do, but not because of a given moral-system. The satanic initiation is a way of overcoming hindrances to your personal power. Therefore it IS a "sin" to risk your life without a very good reason.

Top
#60109 - 10/17/11 11:30 AM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
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.


This is only true if you eliminate human activity from what constitutes normal circumstances, ie drawing that same arbitrary line between man and nature that is the foundation of abrahamic thought.

Human activity is a result of nature, and is thus natural. Our manipulation of the atom is no different than a birds manipulation of twigs to build a nest or a viruses manipulation of animal cells. Any line drawn in the sand here will always be one of religion, and entirely arbitrary.


As for the bit about reducing the quality of life being a sin(ie against nature)..that's the most ridiculous non sequitur I've read all week. 'Quality of life' is an entirely subjective thing.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60111 - 10/17/11 12:03 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1646
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:

Human activity is a result of nature, and is thus natural. Our manipulation of the atom is no different than a birds manipulation of twigs to build a nest or a viruses manipulation of animal cells. Any line drawn in the sand here will always be one of religion, and entirely arbitrary.


I agree wholeheartedly. Everything affects everything else in the universe; there is nothing inherently "unnatural" about this. Even if mankind could figure out some way to make the sun collapse within itself and consequently obliterate the entire solar system, such an act would be just as natural as a flower blooming. (Indeed, there are seemingly infinite stars and systems outside of our own; the universe as whole would hardly skip a beat were our tiny corner of the cosmos done away with.)

Essential to Satanism, I think, is to admit and embrace the baleful aspects of nature, especially those aberrant phenomena that seem horrifying or even "evil" to the average person. Satan, is, after all, a god of chaos and destruction-- an honest evaluation of such reveals that in the grand scope of things, nothing is sacred, and everything is destined to the merciless fate of entropy and dissolution.



Edited by The Zebu (10/17/11 12:05 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60112 - 10/17/11 12:24 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
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.


This is only true if you eliminate human activity from what constitutes normal circumstances, ie drawing that same arbitrary line between man and nature that is the foundation of abrahamic thought.


In fact i do that, but i don`t think the differntiation between "natural" and "unnatural" activities is "abrahamitic" per se. The phenomena of mental conditions cannot be explained in the same way natural laws explain what happens in the material world.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Human activity is a result of nature, and is thus natural. Our manipulation of the atom is no different than a birds manipulation of twigs to build a nest or a viruses manipulation of animal cells. Any line drawn in the sand here will always be one of religion, and entirely arbitrary.


I disagree. Human will and psyche is something that is not bound to physical laws. Intentional conditions like goals, wishes or opinions are mental, not physical. This is not only a topic of religion, but of the philosophy of mind as well.

In the case of Satanism / Setianism, the idea of seeing the human psyche as something sacred, is a religios idea, though.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
As for the bit about reducing the quality of life being a sin(ie against nature)..that's the most ridiculous non sequitur I've read all week. 'Quality of life' is an entirely subjective thing.


Of course it is subjective in detail, but show me at least one person who would prefer living in a post-fallout world. There are some basic needs all human beings share, Satanist or not.


Edited by Iskander (10/17/11 12:25 PM)

Top
#60113 - 10/17/11 12:32 PM Re: Atheism [Re: dust-e sheytoon]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: dust-e sheytoon
... nuclear fission can occur naturally ...

It occurs naturally all the time, as for example the Sun. My comment was meant in the sense that by inducing it in a plae and on a scale where it does not normally occur, as in atomic bombs within the Earth biosphere, we disrupt the OU's normal functioning to an increasingly dangerous degree. Carving a tree into a table has a bit less of a ripple effect, unless you eliminate entire forests for tables, of course.

 Quote:
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?

Not really my field of expertise. As a professional PSYOP officer I am an expert on bullshit, of course, and I notice that there is always a plentiful [and constantly rising] supply of that; all we need to do is figure out how to process it for fuel.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60114 - 10/17/11 12:45 PM Re: Atheism [Re: The Zebu]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
I agree wholeheartedly. Everything affects everything else in the universe; there is nothing inherently "unnatural" about this. Even if mankind could figure out some way to make the sun collapse within itself and consequently obliterate the entire solar system, such an act would be just as natural as a flower blooming. (Indeed, there are seemingly infinite stars and systems outside of our own; the universe as whole would hardly skip a beat were our tiny corner of the cosmos done away with.)


Strictly speaking the whole idea of causality is manmade. But if we take for granted that there are happenings in nature that occur without human influence (which is a useful hypothesis), there is a difference between a rock moved by gravity and a rock moved by a human being. As soon as a sentient, self-reflecting being causes something in the world, we have left the principle of "dead" matter.

Now a material world changed by humans is "natural" in so far as the material changes in this world do not affect the causality of physical laws. But the CAUSE of these changes is unnatural, for they are the result of a mental status. This is the basic concept of magic: Bringing something into physical being that has been pure mental before you startet the action. An action, that propably never would have occured without you.

 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
Essential to Satanism, I think, is to admit and embrace the baleful aspects of nature, especially those aberrant phenomena that seem horrifying or even "evil" to the average person. Satan, is, after all, a god of chaos and destruction-- an honest evaluation of such reveals that in the grand scope of things, nothing is sacred, and everything is destined to the merciless fate of entropy and dissolution.


Being "natural" is no attractive goal to me. I prefer creating things and situations that didn`t exist before.

Satan is the advesary of the status quo, yes. But the destruction and chaos he represents is just the prior condition to establish a new order on your own.



Edited by Iskander (10/17/11 01:04 PM)

Top
#60115 - 10/17/11 01:08 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:
I disagree. Human will and psyche is something that is not bound to physical laws. Intentional conditions like goals, wishes or opinions are mental, not physical.


Unless you are arguing that mind is not an effect of brain (which requires making religious assumptions necessarily based in faith alone) this statement is nonsense. Again, you are drawing an arbitrary line with no supporting theory. You might as well say magnetism is not bound to physical laws because the field itself(which is of course non physical)and that which generates it can be separately identified.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60116 - 10/17/11 01:09 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
I disagree. Human will and psyche is something that is not bound to physical laws. Intentional conditions like goals, wishes or opinions are mental, not physical. This is not only a topic of religion, but of the philosophy of mind as well.

In the case of Satanism / Setianism, the idea of seeing the human psyche as something sacred, is a religios idea, though.


That's crap. Human will and psyche are of course bound by natural laws since humans are bound by them. There's nothing your will or mind can do that violates any physical law.

The human psyche is not sacred at all unless you fancy that kind of bullshit. This far there isn't even a shred of evidence the human psyche, or our precious free will, is not a product of our brain. In fact, the only evidence there is regarding free will is in opposition with it.

Top
#60117 - 10/17/11 01:13 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
This is true. The idea of 'free will' is entirely abrahamic/nazarene, and is indeed the foundation of that doctrine. There is no actual science supporting that doctrine.

But then again, we already know how setians feel about 'science', which is almost identical to how young earth creationists do.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60118 - 10/17/11 01:27 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Diavolo]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
I disagree. Human will and psyche is something that is not bound to physical laws. Intentional conditions like goals, wishes or opinions are mental, not physical. This is not only a topic of religion, but of the philosophy of mind as well.

In the case of Satanism / Setianism, the idea of seeing the human psyche as something sacred, is a religios idea, though.


That's crap. Human will and psyche are of course bound by natural laws since humans are bound by them. There's nothing your will or mind can do that violates any physical law.


The will / mind doesn`t violate the physical law, it acts INDEPENDEND of it. There is no proof that the mind is organized in the same way the physical patterns are structured.

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
The human psyche is not sacred at all unless you fancy that kind of bullshit. This far there isn't even a shred of evidence the human psyche, or our precious free will, is not a product of our brain. In fact, the only evidence there is regarding free will is in opposition with it.


"Product" is the wrong term. There is some evidence that neuronal patterns in the brain correlate with mental conditions. That is, however, not an argument against free will.

The human psyche is sacred when you declare it sacred, yes. So where is the problem?


Edited by Iskander (10/17/11 01:36 PM)

Top
#60119 - 10/17/11 01:35 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
 Quote:
I disagree. Human will and psyche is something that is not bound to physical laws. Intentional conditions like goals, wishes or opinions are mental, not physical.


Unless you are arguing that mind is not an effect of brain (which requires making religious assumptions necessarily based in faith alone) this statement is nonsense. Again, you are drawing an arbitrary line with no supporting theory. You might as well say magnetism is not bound to physical laws because the field itself(which is of course non physical)and that which generates it can be separately identified.


The brain is not the mind, it is an organ. Of course there is a relation between the brain, other organs and the mind. But there is no philosophical theory that explains how the mind came into being, nor how it works, and natural science does not explain it either.

This problem is in no way religios per se. See Donald Davidson`s concept of anomalous monism, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_monism


Edited by Iskander (10/17/11 01:36 PM)

Top
#60120 - 10/17/11 01:41 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
This is true. The idea of 'free will' is entirely abrahamic/nazarene, and is indeed the foundation of that doctrine. There is no actual science supporting that doctrine.


Oh, there is one. It is called philosophy.

Top
#60121 - 10/17/11 01:43 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
You are committing the logical fallacy of Appeal to ignorance

Do you know what that is?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60122 - 10/17/11 01:46 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
This is true. The idea of 'free will' is entirely abrahamic/nazarene, and is indeed the foundation of that doctrine. There is no actual science supporting that doctrine.


Oh, there is one. It is called philosophy.


Science and philosophy are categorically different things. And there isn't even any good philosophy that supports the idea of freewill. Zero for two old bean.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60123 - 10/17/11 01:53 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1646
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
The brain is not the mind, it is an organ. Of course there is a relation between the brain, other organs and the mind. But there is no philosophical theory that explains how the mind came into being, nor how it works, and natural science does not explain it either.


There is no exhaustive explanation of the prime cause of many common phenomena, such as gravity. Does it really merit such special importance that it must be essentially different from other physical occurrences?


Edited by The Zebu (10/17/11 01:54 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60124 - 10/17/11 02:02 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
You are committing the logical fallacy of Appeal to ignorance

Do you know what that is?


Look, if you take, for example, the position of a naturalist, you are confronted with a certain problem when it comes to the explanaition of the mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_gap

Do your own research, and you will find out that my argumentation is valid.

Top
#60125 - 10/17/11 02:14 PM Re: Atheism [Re: The Zebu]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
 Quote:
The brain is not the mind, it is an organ. Of course there is a relation between the brain, other organs and the mind. But there is no philosophical theory that explains how the mind came into being, nor how it works, and natural science does not explain it either.


There is no exhaustive explanation of the prime cause of many common phenomena, such as gravity. Does it really merit such special importance that it must be essentially different from other physical occurrences?


Yes, because hard materialistic positions are reducible. To the materialistic paradigms, the mind is an anomaly. So there are two options: 1. Desclaiming to explain the mind in a materialistic way. 2. Developing a new theory that closes the explanatory gap. The latter option did not work out yet.

It`s a matter of what you demand to explain, and which paradigm is chosen for that.


Edited by Iskander (10/17/11 02:15 PM)

Top
#60126 - 10/17/11 02:15 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
None of this is new to me I'm afraid, and you are still arguing from ignorance. Always a favourite of the theist of all stripes.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60127 - 10/17/11 02:16 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
dust-e sheytoon Offline
member


Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 206
Loc: NYC
While staying on topic via Dr. Aquino's statement 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," I would also like to respond to:
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
...As a professional PSYOP officer I am an expert on bullshit, of course, and I notice that there is always a plentiful [and constantly rising] supply of that; all we need to do is figure out how to process it for fuel.


The Psy Op/bs metaphor is useful literally and could also be useful strategically. Perhaps we can isolate specifically powerful components or methods of the pro-nuclear energy lobby propaganda and either co-opt or recycle them with our own spin in a sort of Wing Chun/Jeet Kune Do way that turns their bs back on them. After all, the nuclear lobby has tried to co-opt the "clean energy" label of green renewables. So they're already doing this to us. The ball is in our court.

Regarding successful persuasion, I guess the trick is to not only appeal to reason, but also to appeal to the "base animal instincts of the masses" (mentioned in the Century of the Self documentary). It's got to work on both levels, and/or be tailored to various demographics to unite them behind the cause of shutting down old plants.

Hmmm...maybe we could anthropomorphize the nuclear plants, and have them asking to be shut down.

The caveat is that the Stuxnet virus could really complicate shutting them down. Waiting until there is an emergency to shut down Stuxnet-infected nuclear plants without creating an antidote or backup, however, is gambling on creating another Fukushima. Seems better to plan the shutdowns, add safety back up, close monitoring and means of compensating for Stuxnet or overriding Stuxnet's false reports of okay shutdown.

Regarding actual biological waste, poop-generated methane gas is a viable energy source for large scale projects, and some people are trying to create "digesters" for single-family energy use.

Human Feces Powers Rwandan Prison
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/07/68127

Hog farm poop generates electricity in Cali:
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/renewables/biomass/digester_landfill.html

People brainstorming about small digesters for single family use:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/9456-5kw-home-power-methane-system-help-needed.html

Geothermal is another option:
http://www.harryreid.com/index.php/news/article/geothermal_plants_approved_near_fallon/
_________________________
Fly for your lives! A great magician comes! He summons armies from the earth itself! ~ ArabianNights

Top
#60128 - 10/17/11 02:25 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
None of this is new to me I'm afraid, and you are still arguing from ignorance. Always a favourite of the theist of all stripes.


That is interesting, i didn`t know i was a theist. So would you please be so kind and tell me

1. which specific theory explains the mind in a materialistic way and

2. how a separation between mental and material phenomenas is essential theistic?

Thank you.


Edited by Iskander (10/17/11 02:26 PM)

Top
#60129 - 10/17/11 02:31 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Look, if you take, for example, the position of a naturalist, you are confronted with a certain problem when it comes to the explanaition of the mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_gap

Do your own research, and you will find out that my argumentation is valid.


Didn't we encounter this sort of reasoning in creationism? Aha a GAP thus GOD.

Too funny if it wasn't so sad.

Top
#60130 - 10/17/11 02:33 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Diavolo]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Look, if you take, for example, the position of a naturalist, you are confronted with a certain problem when it comes to the explanaition of the mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_gap

Do your own research, and you will find out that my argumentation is valid.


Didn't we encounter this sort of reasoning in creationism? Aha a GAP thus GOD.

Too funny if it wasn't so sad.



Again, this has nothing to do with religion per se. I reject creationism as well.


Edited by Iskander (10/17/11 02:35 PM)

Top
#60131 - 10/17/11 02:38 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
That doesn't matter; it's the mystical thinking that's the problem in religion and in this sort of nonsense.

We can't fully explain consciousness thus: something really special. We can't fully explain gravity either but none suggests it's god's aura pulling at everything.

There's enough evidence, and really enough, to show that any affection of the brain does affect the mind. They are able to predict your choice seconds before you consciously make it simply by having a scanner observe what happens in the brain.

I know, it is much nicer to think we are special and that we are completely free-willed but this far sadly nothing really points into that direction.

Top
#60132 - 10/17/11 02:41 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
None of this is new to me I'm afraid, and you are still arguing from ignorance. Always a favourite of the theist of all stripes.


That is interesting, i didn`t know i was a theist. So would you please be so kind and tell me

1. which specific theory explains the mind in a materialistic way and

2. how a separation between mental and material phenomenas is essential theistic?

Thank you.


1: again, arguing from ignorance. I can just as easily say that we don't know, absolutely, what causes gravity, therefor it must be a magical force unto itself. You see the gap there? Why one doesn't follow the other? This is the god of the gaps argument, plain and simple.

2: I didn't say you were a theist, only that you share a similarly shaky philosophical position as they. You are drawing an arbitrary line that has no rational foundation.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60134 - 10/17/11 02:58 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Diavolo]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
That doesn't matter; it's the mystical thinking that's the problem in religion and in this sort of nonsense.


No. I don`t even touch metaphysics here, it is just common, normal philosophy of the mind. Nothing more and nothing less.

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
We can't fully explain consciousness thus: something really special. We can't fully explain gravity either but none suggests it's god's aura pulling at everything.


The difference is this: Gravity is a factor used in physics. The mind is not. I am not speculating on an external god here.

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
There's enough evidence, and really enough, to show that any affection of the brain does affect the mind. They are able to predict your choice seconds before you consciously make it simply by having a scanner observe what happens in the brain.


The Libet-experiments are not up to date. As said above: I have no problem admitting that the brain and the mind are related. I only state that they are not IDENTICAL. This is not mystic, it is just a matter of intellectual honesty.

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
I know, it is much nicer to think we are special and that we are completely free-willed but this far sadly nothing really points into that direction.


Quite the opposite: The whole phenomena is far more complex.

Top
#60136 - 10/17/11 03:13 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
1: again, arguing from ignorance. I can just as easily say that we don't know, absolutely, what causes gravity, therefor it must be a magical force unto itself. You see the gap there? Why one doesn't follow the other? This is the god of the gaps argument, plain and simple.


I never said unexplained phenomenas are essential magic. I said magic is based on the unexplained phenomena we call mind. That is a big difference: I didn`t use magic as an explanation, i tried to explain magic.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
2: I didn't say you were a theist, only that you share a similarly shaky philosophical position as they. You are drawing an arbitrary line that has no rational foundation.


The rational fundation of drawing this line is given in the oservance that natural science has a limited potential of explanation. Which is totally common, for all scientific paradigms have a limited area of expertise.

Top
#60137 - 10/17/11 03:17 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
That's irrelevant. You are speculating on an "external" mind.

The mind is an phenomenon of the brain. Damage the brain and you damage the mind. If the mind was independent, it would not be affected by anything happening to the brain. We know damage to the brain affects the mind because there are loads of people evidencing this.

Top
#60138 - 10/17/11 03:22 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:
The rational fundation of drawing this line is given in the oservance that natural science has a limited potential of explanation. Which is totally common, for all scientific paradigms have a limited area of expertise.


Exactly, again, argument from ignorance. We don't know what causes X, which means we can't prove that Y didn't cause X, therefor Y caused X

This is just piss poor logic.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60139 - 10/17/11 03:45 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Gattamelata Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/23/10
Posts: 45

The problem with such dualisms, Iskander, is that you try to erect a philosophical construct that attempts to escape the clutching fingers of materialism, even though the actual function of this construct seems to depend entirely on the neurological circuits it claims to be somehow seperate from.

Now, of course such philosophical and/or linguistic constructs are not identical to the physical processes they depend on. No one claims that. The spoken word "delusion" is not identical to the larynx. But audible speech is dependant upon some sort of vocal organ.
_________________________
Society : an inferno of saviors. —Emil Cioran

Top
#60140 - 10/17/11 03:53 PM Re: Atheism [Re: dust-e sheytoon]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: dust-e sheytoon
Regarding actual biological waste, poop-generated methane gas is a viable energy source for large scale projects, and some people are trying to create "digesters" for single-family energy use.

Meanwhile we can use mushrooms to clean up existing contamination.

Staying with the main thread topic, this could also be grounds for a new religious cult of fungi-worship [as the true savior of humanity]. HPL has already laid the groundwork with assorted fungoid deities. Also, for those who miss eating the body of Christ in church every Sunday, these new gods can be added to pizza, made into soup, sauteed, etc. The theological implications are succulent.

_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60141 - 10/17/11 04:09 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Diavolo]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
That's irrelevant. You are speculating on an "external" mind.


No. I`m talking about different angles of view.

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
The mind is an phenomenon of the brain. Damage the brain and you damage the mind. If the mind was independent, it would not be affected by anything happening to the brain. We know damage to the brain affects the mind because there are loads of people evidencing this.


I totally agree: The mind is a phenomenon of the brain. But it is not the brain itself. While natural science might explain how all neuronal activities in the brain work someday (i hope so), it will not explain how the mind works.

To use an allegory: Can you explain the meaning of a painting by analyzing the physical structure of the particles it is made of?


Edited by Iskander (10/17/11 04:09 PM)

Top
#60142 - 10/17/11 04:14 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
 Quote:
The rational fundation of drawing this line is given in the oservance that natural science has a limited potential of explanation. Which is totally common, for all scientific paradigms have a limited area of expertise.


Exactly, again, argument from ignorance. We don't know what causes X, which means we can't prove that Y didn't cause X, therefor Y caused X

This is just piss poor logic.


There was no Y (in the sense of a proven cause) in my argumentation. I just said that mental conditions do not fit in the explanation-system of natural science. It goes like this:

X explains natural phenomenas. Y is a phenomenon X cannot explain. Therefor, Y is not natural.


Edited by Iskander (10/17/11 04:16 PM)

Top
#60143 - 10/17/11 04:32 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Still an appeal to ignorance boss. You are arguing that because we do not yet understand consciousness, it is therefor unnatural. The same argument could have once been applied to such phenomenon as thunder or even fire. Just because we can't currently explain a thing does not mean therefor - unnatural. Again, that is the exact same reasoning as god of the gaps, and is an argument from ignorance.

How many times does this need to be said? Are you a bit retarded or something?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60144 - 10/17/11 04:42 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Gattamelata Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/23/10
Posts: 45
Iskander: you start in the wrong end, by lumping together different neurological, cognitive and neuropsychological processes under the banner of 'mind', which you then proceed to bestow with imagined metaphysical properties that elude scientific explanation.

But the various processes and functions constituting this 'mind' are in no way immune to scientific and empirical investigation.
_________________________
Society : an inferno of saviors. —Emil Cioran

Top
#60145 - 10/17/11 05:52 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1646
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
Yes, because hard materialistic positions are reducible. To the materialistic paradigms, the mind is an anomaly.


"Anomaly: (deviation from the norm) abnormality, deviance, deviation, exception, inconsistency, irregularity"

How exactly does the existence of the mind "contradict" materialism? And hardly anything is ultimately reducible in science- we can only come up with a series of testable theories of why things function the way they do. Heat, magnetism, gravity, entropy, etc, cannot be "reduced" by your criteria. So far, our neurological models of biology have held up decently well. I think you just might be playing word games at this point.


Edited by The Zebu (10/17/11 05:53 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60146 - 10/17/11 05:53 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Still an appeal to ignorance boss. You are arguing that because we do not yet understand consciousness, it is therefor unnatural. The same argument could have once been applied to such phenomenon as thunder or even fire. Just because we can't currently explain a thing does not mean therefor - unnatural. Again, that is the exact same reasoning as god of the gaps, and is an argument from ignorance.

How many times does this need to be said? Are you a bit retarded or something?


No. I just argue that natural science is the wrong place to explain the mind and the intentional conditions it bears. That would be like explaining gravity via psychology.

Besides, you should work on your manners. I have no interest in interacting with someone who lacks the basics in civilized discussion.

Top
#60147 - 10/17/11 06:00 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Again, there's nothing special about the "mind", about every living creature has it. It's simply a degree of awareness. I think what you are talking about is that what we consider the "self" which is again a phenomenon of the mind and not even uniquely human.

But the lack of understanding in how it all exactly functions does not imply it is not natural or can't be explained naturally.

If I damage you brain, and that damages your mind and thus self, evidently it has some natural cause and as such, can be explained with natural science. Being currently incapable does not imply something to be beyond it.

Top
#60148 - 10/17/11 06:11 PM Re: Atheism [Re: The Zebu]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
 Quote:
Yes, because hard materialistic positions are reducible. To the materialistic paradigms, the mind is an anomaly.


"Anomaly: (deviation from the norm) abnormality, deviance, deviation, exception, inconsistency, irregularity"

How exactly does the existence of the mind "contradict" materialism? And hardly anything is ultimately reducible in science- we can only come up with a series of testable theories of why things function the way they do. Heat, magnetism, gravity, entropy, etc, cannot be "reduced" by your criteria. So far, our neurological models of biology have held up decently well. I think you just might be playing word games at this point.


Hm, perhaps i was not precise enough here.

I refered to materialists like Paul Churchland, who want to eliminate mental concepts in science.

Mental phenomenas contradict natural science in so far as they cannot be described accurate in terms of natural science like physics or chemistry. Sure, you can analyze the brain waves of a person, but does this tell you something of his or her beliefs, wishes, emotions and so on?

Natural science deals with physical structures, laws, actions and reactions. There is no place for intentionality in natural science.

Top
#60149 - 10/17/11 06:24 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Diavolo]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
Again, there's nothing special about the "mind", about every living creature has it. It's simply a degree of awareness. I think what you are talking about is that what we consider the "self" which is again a phenomenon of the mind and not even uniquely human.


Ok, we can call it "self". I think the human self is something very unique. Nothing else has produced a language so far that enables it to articulate self-reflection.

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
But the lack of understanding in how it all exactly functions does not imply it is not natural or can't be explained naturally.

If I damage you brain, and that damages your mind and thus self, evidently it has some natural cause and as such, can be explained with natural science. Being currently incapable does not imply something to be beyond it.


Explaining changes of the self caused by actions on the material level is not enough. This strategy tells us nothing about how a personality is established and how it works. If natural science could explain the mind, it should allow prognoses on how people will act and why, how it feels to do X etc.

Top
#60150 - 10/17/11 07:09 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Actually the human "self" isn't that unique and other animals have it too, although in a "lesser" developed form, which is why this whole "gift" of Set is a silly idea. Is he discriminating the other apes or what?

I don't understand this "explaining" on the material level isn't enough. That's like saying that explaining how we are able to pronounce a word like "Aum" isn't enough when we can't explain how each "hears" it. After all, since every human has a somewhat unique physical build, there's no guarantee they hear, or see, or smell, or feel anything exactly identical as another.

So what was your point?



Top
#60151 - 10/17/11 07:15 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Ok, we can call it "self" ...

You're doing a valiant job here, but you're basically arguing with self-conscious beings who believe that they really don't exist except as stimulus/response mechanisms. Ironically, since atheists cannot otherwise comprehend or define the ba/psyche/soul, their denial of it is necessarily an act of faith, hence for them Atheism is a de facto religion. And that is why your arguments and explanations won't dent their shell [and also why they will become even angrier having this pointed out].

All of which brings to mind the story of the philosophy student who, after listening to a lecture on Descartes, became more and more agitated until, at 4 AM, he finally telephoned the professor and screamed into the phone: "Tell me - I've got to know! DO I EXIST?!" The prof yawned, "And who wants to know?"
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60153 - 10/17/11 08:03 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Well Iskander, you better listen to Mike. I'm just a dude who picked up his stuff here and there but Mike, god talked to him you know, so he must know this stuff.

I can't compete there.

Top
#60154 - 10/17/11 08:10 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Gattamelata Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/23/10
Posts: 45
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Ok, we can call it "self" ...

You're doing a valiant job here, but you're basically arguing with self-conscious beings who believe that they really don't exist except as stimulus/response mechanisms. Ironically, since atheists cannot otherwise comprehend or define the ba/psyche/soul, their denial of it is necessarily an act of faith, hence for them Atheism is a de facto religion. And that is why your arguments and explanations won't dent their shell [and also why they will become even angrier having this pointed out].



But then again, almost everything requires some investment of belief – but to reduce every position as such to a religious one empties the term ’religion’ of any explanatory significance.

The point is simple: the soul, the mind, the ba, the psyche, the whatever you want to call your favorite metaphysical construct, is – from the point of experimental science – completely dependent upon the activity of various neurological, neuropsychological and cognitive circuits.

Now, perhaps Gurdjieff was right: a soul is not something given, but something created through effort by the initiate. And perhaps the Dalai Lama will laugh as his physical envelope dies, as that was just one amongst many ephemeral projections set in motion by his true transcausal mind.

But the point still stands. Any such ’soul’ is not accessible for science to investigate, as it goes in the bin with any other such subjective constructs and/or metaphysical claims.
_________________________
Society : an inferno of saviors. —Emil Cioran

Top
#60155 - 10/17/11 08:16 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Goliath Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/26/10
Posts: 93
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Mental phenomenas contradict natural science in so far as they cannot be described accurate in terms of natural science like physics or chemistry. Sure, you can analyze the brain waves of a person, but does this tell you something of his or her beliefs, wishes, emotions and so on?


This question seems misconceived to me.

The distinction you're making here is the distinction between what medical doctors call "signs" and "symptoms". Signs are those things which are observed by the physician. Symptoms are those things which are observed by the patient.

Doctors don't use signs to understand symptoms, or symptoms to understand signs. Rather, they use both signs and symptoms to help them understand the underlying condition.

Similarly, neuroscience (as I understand it) does not use brain waves to tell us something about a person's beliefs and wishes. Rather, it uses both to help us understand how the brain (and the mind) actually work.

The best example I can think of would be Benjamin Libet's experiments, which involved both EEG scans (signs) and reports from test subjects (symptoms). These experiments showed fairly clearly, as the Wikipedia article explains, that unconscious electrical processes in the brain precede conscious decisions.

 Quote:
Natural science deals with physical structures, laws, actions and reactions. There is no place for intentionality in natural science.


Actually, I'm pretty sure there is--just as there is a place for symptoms in medicine, along with signs.


Edited by Goliath (10/17/11 08:19 PM)
_________________________
An illusion--with intelligence! A malignant vision, with a will of pure evil!

Top
#60156 - 10/17/11 08:29 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1646
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
but you're basically arguing with self-conscious beings who believe that they really don't exist except as stimulus/response mechanisms.


I think you are evoking a straw-man of materialism. It is impossible to disprove the purported existence of an immaterial soul, but such a claim lies outside the capabilities of easily demonstrable human certainty.

Every attempt to elaborate and describe "the soul" has failed miserably, Dr. Aquino, and your esoteric philosophy is emblematic of this problem, in that it is one of infinite, vague mysticisms glued to contradictory metaphysical accessories and tenuous "spiritual experiences". Every culture has its own unique conception of the soul that shares very little common ground, except that it exists by virtue of it existing.

I can make a claim that the soul is an immaterial ghost that exits the body after death, and is thereafter sustained by the religious devotion of its descendants while retaining a semblance of its human personality. Or I could claim that souls are uniform sparks of divinity with no anthropic attributes at all, that consist of a whole called "God" redeemed by piety. I could also claim that souls are higher spiritual beings trapped fleshly prisons by a jealous Demiurge. Heck, I might also theorize that we are all individual entities generously bestowed with metaphysical awareness by a force of isolate self-consciousness that, for some reason, is best represented as a pederastic aardvark.

How can one honestly elaborate or disprove any of the above notions with the slightest semblance of certainty?

 Quote:
Ironically, since atheists cannot otherwise comprehend or define the ba/psyche/soul, their denial of it is necessarily an act of faith, hence for them atheism is a de facto religion.


Here you are conflating materialism with Atheism. But that's an admittedly common error made by advocates as well as detractors.


Edited by The Zebu (10/17/11 08:33 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60187 - 10/18/11 12:01 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Well, i think we all agree that an atomic explosion is something that is not occuring under normal circumstances.


If you look up on any clear day, you will see a normal atomic explosion. Ironically, such explosions are the only reason your physical body is here.

Side note: forest fires are natural and normal. Controlling them is not "preventing sin", it's merely preventing property damage.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#60189 - 10/18/11 01:46 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Autodidact Offline
member


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

Mental phenomenas contradict natural science in so far as they cannot be described accurate in terms of natural science like physics or chemistry.


This is the crux of your misunderstanding. As Dan, Diavolo and others have repeatedly pointed out, this may be merely an insufficiency in our understanding. You are misinterpreting that insufficiency as contradiction, and then using that "contradiction" as evidence for some other point.

The second part of that is appeal to ignorance, because you're attempting to prove a conclusion based (solely!) on a piece of evidence that's not viable. (Note that it does not matter why the first part fails.)

Considering a thing as evidence to be used in proof, based on no supporting facts, and refusing to consider any alternate explanations, is one of the hallmarks of faith.

 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Explaining changes of the self caused by actions on the material level is not enough.[...]


This stance is also a hallmark of faith. You don't like the information you have, so you start to twist facts to suit your theories, rather than twist theories to suit facts (to paraphrase Robert Downey Jr. in Sherlock Holmes). This is poor thinking, and this crowd won't stand for it.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#60190 - 10/18/11 01:52 PM 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
...Ironically, since atheists cannot otherwise comprehend or define the ba/psyche/soul, their denial of it is necessarily an act of faith, hence for them Atheism is a de facto religion....

Dr. Aquino, I'm curious, how do you go about defining the ba/psyche/soul? Do you have a definition of it, or of what it is not? If so, what is your definition? Also, are there (unclassified) scientific theories you can point to which support your definition?

You wrote a paper which dismissed remote viewing, which I find to be tangentially related to the concept of the ba/psyche/soul. Remote viewing would entail some ability of consciousness to travel beyond what is immediately accessible to the person's physical body. It would entail an ability to transcend usual channels of information gathering. As I imagine it, the ba/psyche/soul would possess similar abilities to transcend and travel beyond the physical body, the difference being that physical-based and ba/psyche/soul-based consciousness might not be the same thing, and in fact, might have very different qualities and abilities.

If it is true that matter cannot be destroyed, it can convert to energy, then is it not possible that at death the electric field of the body might convert to another form of energy which some might refer to the ba/psyche/soul?
_________________________
Fly for your lives! A great magician comes! He summons armies from the earth itself! ~ ArabianNights

Top
#60193 - 10/18/11 02:14 PM Re: Atheism [Re: dust-e sheytoon]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: dust-e sheytoon

If it is true that matter cannot be destroyed, it can convert to energy, then is it not possible that at death the electric field of the body might convert to another form of energy which some might refer to the ba/psyche/soul?


You are a hundred years too late. Go google Wilhelm Reich and Henri Bergson.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#60207 - 10/18/11 09:02 PM Re: Atheism [Re: dust-e sheytoon]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: dust-e sheytoon
Dr. Aquino, I'm curious, how do you go about defining the ba/psyche/soul? Do you have a definition of it, or of what it is not? If so, what is your definition? Also, are there (unclassified) scientific theories you can point to which support your definition?

Cf. this post, as well as "The Immortality of the Psyche" in Chapter #4 of Black Magic.

 Quote:
You wrote a paper which dismissed remote viewing, which I find to be tangentially related to the concept of the ba/psyche/soul. Remote viewing would entail some ability of consciousness to travel beyond what is immediately accessible to the person's physical body. It would entail an ability to transcend usual channels of information gathering. As I imagine it, the ba/psyche/soul would possess similar abilities to transcend and travel beyond the physical body, the difference being that physical-based and ba/psyche/soul-based consciousness might not be the same thing, and in fact, might have very different qualities and abilities.

No, the ba is not an OU (matter/energy) function; it is metaphysical. My objection to the SRI "remote viewing" nonsense was that it argued for physical-sensory transmission between humans, unamplified/connected, over distances. That would be an OU process. But it was just flim-flam.

 Quote:
If it is true that matter cannot be destroyed, it can convert to energy, then is it not possible that at death the electric field of the body might convert to another form of energy which some might refer to the ba/psyche/soul?

Cf. the distinction between the L-Field (which you're talking about here) and the T-Field in my essay linked above. Within the OU, matter can convert to energy, or to nothing upon contact with an identical amount of antimatter.

This is fun stuff and leads you down the interesting and still pretty theoretical path of ZPE. Google "zero point energy" and enjoy.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60308 - 10/20/11 09:53 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
Dr. Aquino, you say the ba is metaphysical. I say where is your proof that the ba, or the metaphysical for that matter, exists?

You have no proof, and therein lies the problem. You believe that the metaphysical exists, and you’re trying to convince others to believe with you. You believe that Set exists, and you’re trying to convince others to believe with you. Well, you can believe whatever you want. You can believe the sky is made of marshmallows if you want. It doesn’t make it true.

I personally don’t care about the “metaphysical”, and I don’t care about “Set”. Set can kiss my ass. You know what I care about? Me. LHP, baby. Look it up.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#60310 - 10/20/11 10:50 PM Re: Atheism [Re: William Wright]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
Maybe I'm one of a few people on this forum who has seen and conversed with a ba. This has happened on quite a few occasions without the preliminaries of a seance, meditation or whatever. The information given to me during these encounters was specific and proven 100% accurate by astonished third parties.

Now, that is enough for me to believe that an after-death-consciousness or whatever you wish to call it exists in some form independent of the material body. I don't mean I "believe" this in the way I might "believe" in Jesus Christ were I a Christian. I mean I believe in it as I believe I'm typing right now. I had sufficient proof.

As for other people, I couldn't care less whether they believe or not.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#60311 - 10/20/11 10:57 PM Re: Atheism [Re: felixgarnet]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: felixgarnet
I don't mean I "believe" this in the way I might "believe" in Jesus Christ were I a Christian. I mean I believe in it as I believe I'm typing right now. I had sufficient proof.

What's the difference?

Millions of christians swear they have had first hand experiences with jeebus, just as millions of muslims, millions of jews have claimed to talk with god, still thousands more swear they talked to the greys in their spaceship. Some even talk with elvis. Perhaps there is a common denominator, or perhaps all of these mutually exclusive things actually happened.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60312 - 10/20/11 11:07 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
Yeah, they do but what I'm saying is that the dead people (for want of a better expression) with whom I spoke told me very particular things that I couldn't possibly have known which were proven accurate.

One told me in a dream he'd "done something really stupid and wondered if he was dead." I put this down to a nightmare as the guy was aged 21 ( I was 20 at the time), fit, solvent with a good family and work in the Merchant Navy. Nobody knew why he took his own life with vodka and pills but he did. At the precise time I met him.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#60313 - 10/20/11 11:10 PM Re: Atheism [Re: felixgarnet]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Someone you didn't know then?

Sounds like you made the connection afterwards. Otherwise how would it be relevant?

Anyway, I'm not interested in robbing you of your superstitions. I;m sure it was quite real to you.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60314 - 10/20/11 11:17 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Someone you didn't know then?

Sounds like you made the connection afterwards. Otherwise how would it be relevant?

Anyway, I'm not interested in robbing you of your superstitions. I;m sure it was quite real to you.


No, we were friends. I was informed of his death two days later. He'd died at the time I saw him.

Yes, it was real enough for me.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#60319 - 10/21/11 03:50 AM Re: Atheism [Re: felixgarnet]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: felixgarnet
Yes, it was real enough for me.

As the ba is not of the OU, demands that it be established through OU-proof are pointless. The references I cited will either awaken individuals to this SU reality or not; and if not, they will continue to bang their heads determinedly against the dark walls of Plato's cave.

This notwithstanding, the consciousness certainly interacts with the OU, and here are one, two, and three readings [among many others] interesting in this regard.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60324 - 10/21/11 08:31 AM Re: Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Interesting you mention Platos cave, doc. From where I sit, you and others like you that would blind themselves to the realities of the world with religious fictions are the ones that call it home.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60351 - 10/22/11 02:43 AM Re: Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
As the ba is not of the OU, demands that it be established through OU-proof are pointless. The references I cited will either awaken individuals to this SU reality or not; and if not, they will continue to bang their heads determinedly against the dark walls of Plato's cave.

And from where I sit it is seen as classical thinking.
When something occurs in the OU it gives impressions on the SU.
When the SU notices/interpretes something then there must have been something in the OU to trigger it.
Situations of speaking with the dead are most of the time the mind playing tricks on you or simply the brain showing missed information you somewhere picked up but didn't pay attention to.

To give it with a personal example; I had the same thing such as Felix had. But being the person who likes to investigate I came to the conclusion that the anonymous person and his friends took the same bus on a more or less regular base as I did. I didn't know them and never really give them attention. There's a great chance they talked about him, I picked it up unconsciously, dreamt about his death and later on heard about his death. Giving enough base to have detailed information about a person I didn't know.

There's always a simple reason behind the hocus-pocus.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#60353 - 10/22/11 03:20 AM Re: Atheism [Re: Dimitri]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
I'm interested you had a similar experience to my own, Dimitri.

However, not to labour the points, but:

The person's name was Alex and he was a drinking buddy of mine in the 1970's; he was 21 I was 20. We met up about once a week in town and had no form of communication in between time except for the post - no phones and, of course no email.

Alex had recently joined the Merchant Navy and loved it. He was in good health, had a loving family and no money worries.

I simply went to bed one night, having last seen him a week or so previously, fell asleep and saw him in what I supposed was a dream in a misty street, looking rather sad and confused. He said he'd done something stupid and wondered if he was dead. I was very concerned and said he was to keep calm. I remember hugging him and he felt solid.

Then I woke up in a panic and put it down to a nightmare.

Two days later the news of his death appeared on the front of the local paper. It was suspected suicide and the coroner confirmed this at the inquest. He estimated the time of death as the time I "spoke with" Alex in the dream.

Now, there was nothing for me to "pick up on", subconsciously or otherwise; this was a young person in perfect health, exhibiting no signs of depression, certainly not of suicidal thoughts. He killed himself. I met with him in a dream and he clearly said he thought he might be dead. He was. No coincidence, no false memory, no elaboration after the fact. It's watertight.

In my opinion, when something like this happens there's no point in trying to tell yourself it didn't or make up some convoluted and spurious reason for its being down to an over-active imagination or a heavy supper. It's happened to thousands of people all over the world for centuries, according to admittedly subjective reports. If dead people do speak to the living - so what?

This, of course has no relevance to whether or not God exists.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#60354 - 10/22/11 06:44 AM Re: Atheism [Re: felixgarnet]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
A couple of days ago, a friend of mine, during some heavy drinking, is talking about his mother and mentions how he'll think she'll die.

Two days later his brother calls him and said he found her dead at home. She died some time before and apparently around the time my friend was mentioning how she would die.

There is no relation between both, I see it as a coincidence but it might grow into one.

I'm not going to judge your story but what many people don't understand about memory is that it is not a hard-drive with read-only files that each time when you access them reappear in their original state. Each memory we have is a read-write file which implies that after you access some memory, the next time, it is a memory of this memory and as such, can slowly but gradually change over time without us noticing we ourselves are editing it.




Top
#60357 - 10/22/11 05:27 PM 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
...the consciousness certainly interacts with the OU, and here are one, two, and three readings [among many others] interesting in this regard.

"…we can…make two people have the experience of swapping bodies with one another," stated study leader Henrik Ehrsson. So far, he has reportedly been able to 'transfer' subjects' selves into bodies of a different sex, age, or size, but not into inanimate objects." ~ Ben Coxworth, Gizmag, 2/24/11
One cannot help but image the monetary and political potential of such "transfers" and also possible downsides. I'm reminded of the film, Seconds, directed by John Frankenheimer.

Yet, if there is such a thing as a human soul/T-field, and it is able to make its own "transfer" via strength of will (or Orgone), could the results include cases such as James Leningar, "reincarnated WWII pilot"?

Professor of Philosophy Robert Almeder speaks about the reincarnation research of the late Dr. Ian Stevenson, Chair of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia here.,

 Originally Posted By: felixgarnet
"…I…saw him in what I supposed was a dream in a misty street, looking rather sad and confused. He said he'd done something stupid and wondered if he was dead. I was very concerned and said he was to keep calm. I remember hugging him and he felt solid."

It's so great you gave your dying friend a hug, Mr. Garnet! It must have been a comfort to him! How wonderful that he appeared to you, and mentioned that he, "…did something stupid." Comprehending the motive and/or level of intentionality behind a death can be very important.

It so interesting that when you hugged him, "he felt solid". I wonder if there is another dimension of reality where this meeting took place. The possibility of not only consiousness and communication, but also tangible sensation between biologically living and biologically non-living entities is tremendously intriguing.


Edited by dust-e sheytoon (10/22/11 05:41 PM)
Edit Reason: added "T-field"
_________________________
Fly for your lives! A great magician comes! He summons armies from the earth itself! ~ ArabianNights

Top
#60358 - 10/22/11 05:39 PM Re: Atheism [Re: dust-e sheytoon]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: dust-e sheytoon
It so interesting that when you hugged him, "he felt solid". I wonder if there is another dimension of reality where this meeting took place. The possibility of not only consiousness and communication, but also tangible sensation between biologically living and biologically non-living entities is tremendously intriguing.


There really isn't any other dimension needed for these sensations since anything you experience while awake (sensations) can as easily be experienced while dreaming because both solely happen in the same dimension called the brain.

Top
#60360 - 10/22/11 08:28 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Diavolo]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
Thank you for all the input regarding my experience, I've found it all valuable. Briefly, I think life is stranger than we can even begin to imagine and, yes, while no other dimensions are needed as such, they very likely exist.

However, I feel the mods may consider this thread is veering rather off-topic as its title is, "Atheism". While this is a contested term anyway it certainly refers to belief in a deity/deities and not, by extrapolation, to all forms of potential non-corporeal existence, IMO.

Now, I don't believe in God in the Abrahamic sense but I have had some very odd experiences - purely subjective - that have convinced me that Weird Stuff goes on. Dr Aquino is right and so are the hard-line materialists. These sort of experiences cannot be explained by appeals to rational science because they are hugely emotive. It's like trying to explain how you "feel" love for your children the moment they are born and can see that they have their own personalities already. It's not logical but it is fascinating.


Edited by felixgarnet (10/22/11 08:30 PM)
Edit Reason: Spelling
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#60361 - 10/22/11 11:40 PM Re: Atheism [Re: felixgarnet]
dust-e sheytoon Offline
member


Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 206
Loc: NYC
 Originally Posted By: felixgarnet
However, I feel the mods may consider this thread is veering rather off-topic as its title is, "Atheism". While this is a contested term anyway it certainly refers to belief in a deity/deities and not, by extrapolation, to all forms of potential non-corporeal existence, IMO.

I believe we are still on topic because some religions tend to exploit the "afterlife" as a carrot and stick. Christianity in particular uses "Hell" and torture by "demons" as a means of scaring the flock. Some Christians put a great deal of effort into "saving souls." Some Atheists may argue that there is no "soul" to save.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
...Ironically, since atheists cannot otherwise comprehend or define the ba/psyche/soul, their denial of it is necessarily an act of faith, hence for them Atheism is a de facto religion....

As a person who rejected Christianity as a small child, and thought of herself technically as an Atheist, yet while at the same time exploring and improvising upon Native American and Egyptian culture and ceremonial magic as a child; who later cautiously embraced elements of Satanism and Voodoo, and who recently enjoyed visiting the great mosques in Isfahan and Shiraz and Fire Temple and Tower of Silence in Yazd--while succumbing fully neither to Islam nor to Zoroastrianism; and as a person who is combining all these aspects with a lifelong interest in Philosophy, Psychology, Spirits and Science, I'm tremendously enjoying this thread and would like to thank the mods for allowing us this exploration.

The soul is an elusive concept/state of being/presence that many shy away from discussing, and often those that do only argue from a religious or philosophical standpoint. Dr. Aquino 's knowledge of science and psychology pertaining to identity and the soul/T-field informs and enriches this discussion. The combination of theory and potential to act upon it and explore it is very intriguing.




Edited by dust-e sheytoon (10/22/11 11:50 PM)
_________________________
Fly for your lives! A great magician comes! He summons armies from the earth itself! ~ ArabianNights

Top
#60623 - 10/30/11 03:28 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Ok, we can call it "self" ...

You're doing a valiant job here, but you're basically arguing with self-conscious beings who believe that they really don't exist except as stimulus/response mechanisms. Ironically, since atheists cannot otherwise comprehend or define the ba/psyche/soul, their denial of it is necessarily an act of faith, hence for them Atheism is a de facto religion. And that is why your arguments and explanations won't dent their shell [and also why they will become even angrier having this pointed out].


Thanks, Dr. Aquino. I think the problem here is not Atheism per se but scientism and / or naive materialism. It is interesting, however, what ressentiments some satanists reveal when it comes to the potential of the mind.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
All of which brings to mind the story of the philosophy student who, after listening to a lecture on Descartes, became more and more agitated until, at 4 AM, he finally telephoned the professor and screamed into the phone: "Tell me - I've got to know! DO I EXIST?!" The prof yawned, "And who wants to know?"


That reminds me of an example a professor of mine used in a similar context: "If you want to eliminate the "I" via materialism, ask yourself if it is possible to articulate phenomenas like toothache without relating to the mind. No sane human would say: "My brain has toothache.""


Edited by Iskander (10/30/11 03:29 PM)

Top
#60625 - 10/30/11 03:35 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
That reminds me of an example a professor of mine used in a similar context: "If you want to eliminate the "I" via materialism, ask yourself if it is possible to articulate phenomenas like toothache without relating to the mind. No sane human would say: "My brain has toothache.""


Many sane people say "tomorrow I fly to London" but they ain't got wings, so as an argument "I have toothache" doesn't mean much.

Top
#60626 - 10/30/11 03:36 PM Re: Atheism [Re: The Zebu]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
Every attempt to elaborate and describe "the soul" has failed miserably, Dr. Aquino, and your esoteric philosophy is emblematic of this problem, in that it is one of infinite, vague mysticisms glued to contradictory metaphysical accessories and tenuous "spiritual experiences". Every culture has its own unique conception of the soul that shares very little common ground, except that it exists by virtue of it existing.


There is no need to speculate about a concept of "soul". It is obvious we all have somnething we call "mind", "self", "psyche" or "personality". We also have things like intentions, wishes, expectations, tastes etc., that are totally inherent to the way we experience the world and other persons and how we articulate our points of view. We are all playing wordgames in the sense of Wittgenstein because of the imaterial aspects of our existance.


Edited by Iskander (10/30/11 03:38 PM)

Top
#60627 - 10/30/11 03:41 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Diavolo]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
That reminds me of an example a professor of mine used in a similar context: "If you want to eliminate the "I" via materialism, ask yourself if it is possible to articulate phenomenas like toothache without relating to the mind. No sane human would say: "My brain has toothache.""


Many sane people say "tomorrow I fly to London" but they ain't got wings, so as an argument "I have toothache" doesn't mean much.




Not many, but all. That is the point. Or would you say: "My brain decides to fly to London tomorrow."?

Top
#60628 - 10/30/11 04:07 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
That's not the point, we use the metaphor "I" because it evolved as such and this cultural tradition won't suddenly change if the I turns out to be the brain. This is not an argument at all for dualism.
Top
#60629 - 10/30/11 04:40 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Autodidact]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
 Originally Posted By: Iskander

Mental phenomenas contradict natural science in so far as they cannot be described accurate in terms of natural science like physics or chemistry.


This is the crux of your misunderstanding. As Dan, Diavolo and others have repeatedly pointed out, this may be merely an insufficiency in our understanding. You are misinterpreting that insufficiency as contradiction, and then using that "contradiction" as evidence for some other point.


Not at all. What I did was pointing out what are the topics of the paradigms of natural science and what not. Natural sccience was, like all disciplines of science, invented by human beings for a special purpose: The explanaition of nature. Nothing more and nothing less. This is not ignorant, it is the simple statement that natural science cannot explain evertything - a statement no legitmate scientist would deny.

 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
The second part of that is appeal to ignorance, because you're attempting to prove a conclusion based (solely!) on a piece of evidence that's not viable. (Note that it does not matter why the first part fails.)


Strictly speaking I was not claiming I had a proof, for the proof has to be given by the one who is formulating a theory - in this case, everyone who claims that the mind is natural and therefor could be explained via natural science. In this context, it is not my job to prove tat the mind is unnatural, it is your job to prove it is natural.[/quote]

 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
Considering a thing as evidence to be used in proof, based on no supporting facts, and refusing to consider any alternate explanations, is one of the hallmarks of faith.


Now we are talking. You are ignoring the fact that there is an explanation gap in materialistic theories of the mind and that we have no evidence how intentionality could be explained in materialistic terms. Instead of considering alternate ways of explanation, you are claiming these problems will likely be solved via materialism in the future, just like a christian who is awaiting the return of the messiah. Your faith in materialism is remarkable.

Top
#60631 - 10/30/11 04:52 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Not at all. What I did was pointing out what are the topics of the paradigms of natural science and what not. Natural sccience was, like all disciplines of science, invented by human beings for a special purpose: The explanaition of nature. Nothing more and nothing less. This is not ignorant, it is the simple statement that natural science cannot explain evertything - a statement no legitmate scientist would deny.


No, what's true is that it is not certain science can explain everything and this is not the same as there are things science cannot explain, because the second is already subject to magical thinking by assuming there are already things we know that are beyond science.





Top
#60633 - 10/30/11 05:00 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Diavolo]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
That's not the point, we use the metaphor "I" because it evolved as such and this cultural tradition won't suddenly change if the I turns out to be the brain. This is not an argument at all for dualism.


Interesting. So why is the brain inventing metaphors at all?

Top
#60635 - 10/30/11 05:06 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Diavolo]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Not at all. What I did was pointing out what are the topics of the paradigms of natural science and what not. Natural sccience was, like all disciplines of science, invented by human beings for a special purpose: The explanaition of nature. Nothing more and nothing less. This is not ignorant, it is the simple statement that natural science cannot explain evertything - a statement no legitmate scientist would deny.


No, what's true is that it is not certain science can explain everything and this is not the same as there are things science cannot explain, because the second is already subject to magical thinking by assuming there are already things we know that are beyond science.


Perhaps we have a problem of language barrier in this discussion. I claim that the mind / psyche is not a subject of natural science. But it is, of course, the subject of the sciences of the mind. (Or, like we call it in Germany, Geisteswissenschaften. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisteswissenschaft )

Top
#60636 - 10/30/11 05:06 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Interesting. So why is the brain inventing metaphors at all?


Because those that did, had better odds at survival than those that didn't.

You're looking at a current state of evolution and think there's "magic" involved but if you look down the path it took, you see nothing but evolution.


Top
#60637 - 10/30/11 05:13 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Perhaps we have a problem of language barrier in this discussion. I claim that the mind / psyche is not a subject of natural science. But it is, of course, the subject of the sciences of the mind. (Or, like we call it in Germany, Geisteswissenschaften. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisteswissenschaft )


I doubt that very much since neuroscience, which is natural science, revealed us much more about the "I" than Geisteswissenschaft ever did.

Top
#60638 - 10/30/11 05:20 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Diavolo]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Interesting. So why is the brain inventing metaphors at all?


Because those that did, had better odds at survival than those that didn't.


So why had brains that invented the "metaphor" "I" better odds at survival?

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
You're looking at a current state of evolution and think there's "magic" involved but if you look down the path it took, you see nothing but evolution.


I see no problem for the co-existence of evolution and magic. Evolution is a natural phenomenon, magic is a cultural one.


Edited by Iskander (10/30/11 05:20 PM)

Top
#60639 - 10/30/11 05:22 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Diavolo]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
Perhaps we have a problem of language barrier in this discussion. I claim that the mind / psyche is not a subject of natural science. But it is, of course, the subject of the sciences of the mind. (Or, like we call it in Germany, Geisteswissenschaften. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisteswissenschaft )


I doubt that very much since neuroscience, which is natural science, revealed us much more about the "I" than Geisteswissenschaft ever did.


Neuroscience revealed much about the brain and hardly anything about the I. If you can show me any proof of your thesis, please do so.

Top
#60641 - 10/30/11 05:26 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
This is not ignorant, it is the simple statement that natural science cannot explain evertything - a statement no legitmate scientist would deny.



Do you not see what is broken about this statement? While it is true our science can not explain everything about the natural world(although it advances every day), what you are saying requires one to accept there is a reality 'outside' of nature, which is a matter of religious faith...nothing more nothing less.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60643 - 10/30/11 05:35 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
 Originally Posted By: Iskander
This is not ignorant, it is the simple statement that natural science cannot explain evertything - a statement no legitmate scientist would deny.



Do you not see what is broken about this statement? While it is true our science can not explain everything about the natural world(although it advances every day), what you are saying requires one to accept there is a reality 'outside' of nature, which is a matter of religious faith...nothing more nothing less.


If this was true, then everyone who makes a distinction between nature and, for example, culture, would be "religious". On the other hand, there are many religious scientists out there.

Your definition of "nature" is too abstract, and your definition of religion is ... strange.

Top
#60647 - 10/30/11 06:16 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Amazing you ask me proof for my "thesis" but totally ignore it for your views.

First the metaphor. It isn't hard to understand why thinking has better odds at survival than merely reacting. It's all about problem solving and the better one is at it, especially when able to do it before something happens, the better the odds at survival.

You'll even find this evolution in great apes and many other animals. This does not imply we're still not simply reacting but in a quite complex manner. But again, the fact that we think or have an "I" does not imply any duality. Great apes are no different in this even when differently evolved.

Why neuroscience explained more than philosophy or such isn't hard is it. Philosophy is like looking at a tree and then trying to imagine how it functions. No matter what you come up with, in the end you got nothing but an assumption and still no clue about the tree besides how it looks. Neuroscience looks into the tree and even when they might no be able to explain all, they can explain how it functions and what happens when.




Top
#60653 - 10/30/11 10:07 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Iskander]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Iskander




If this was true, then everyone who makes a distinction between nature and, for example, culture, would be "religious". On the other hand, there are many religious scientists out there.

Are you saying that culture isn't a naturally occurring phenomenon? That it requires some sort of supra-rational explanation? If not then this statement is neither here nor there.

 Quote:

Your definition of "nature" is too abstract, and your definition of religion is ... strange.

Not at all. ' nature' is everything that is, everything that happens. To say otherwise is to draw a distinction that would require a better justification than has been offered (read:none)

As for religious faith, the very drawing of this distinction you seem to be basing your case on, in the absence of evidence, requires it. Not so strange..sort of obvious really.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60654 - 10/30/11 10:13 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Culture is nature. It's not because Chimps don't debate about Wittgenstein or play in heavy metal bands that they do not posses culture. There's evidence enough out there showing their culture and one can hardly claim there's anything unnatural about them.
Top
#61434 - 11/16/11 10:27 AM Re: Atheism [Re: TornadoCreator]
Magnussa Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/10/11
Posts: 8
Loc: New York, NY, USA
Wow. You sound pretty pissed. I guess a lot of people give you the "I'm neither one or the other" stance.

I identify as an Atheist. I truly don't believe any deity exists. Like you said though, nobody knows. I'll always be unsure, and people try to classify me as Agnostic because of it. It's annoying as all hell. I think whether you're an Atheist or a Theist depends WHAT YOU BELIEVE. Believe =/= know.

Top
#61464 - 11/16/11 03:51 PM Re: Atheism [Re: Magnussa]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
I truly don't believe any deity exists. Like you said though, nobody knows. I'll always be unsure, and people try to classify me as Agnostic because of it. It's annoying as all hell. I think whether you're an Atheist or a Theist depends WHAT YOU BELIEVE. Believe =/= know.

The problem I'm having with such a statement is this factor of "belief" involved. I find the greater part of Atheists a bunch of the same mindless sheep as the ones who do have a belief in a deity.

A religionist, how illogical their statements might even be, still has a reason to believe which he or she finds good enough. Most Atheists simply believe there is no god. Some might refer to philosophies they tend to live by or are simply christians with god and the whole mythos stripped away from it. But in the end, I never really saw someone who could go a bit further then "I believe there isn't" or "Science has..".
Those are quite some valid responses but they always seem to be parroted and not really experienced.

As an example everyone calling Mozart a "genius" because of his classical workings that is being globally accepted as "quite a genius" and parroted all over the place. I do know he is a genius stemming from my musical background since I find it already hard to write out in musical notes for 4 instruments a whole play of 12 minutes with just one instrument nearby, and making it sound fit. I can imagine doing that for an entire orchestra would be a hell for a job. (Naturally once having a basic on one instrument, the rest will follow a bit more fluently.. but still.)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
Page all of 10 12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.143 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 159 queries. Zlib compression disabled.