#12795 - 09/28/03 03:35 PM
Come,now, Mr Anderson!
|
CoS Member
Registered: 09/16/03
Posts: 1803
Loc: Lycopolis
|
Boy oh boy!, Australia must really be getting hot! and boring! First of all, there are a few questions you must first ask yourself, and they are the very same you've directed at everyone else. You are all but transparent in your efforts to raise anwers to the questions that have obviously been bugging you. I will not sit here and take the high (pretentious) ground by offering that I am above participating in such an easily entered debate! I am only human after all. Why, I ask in return, bother with any of it? Your tone suggests that you are so much above all of this ,yet there you are....posting away. Why would it matter who joins a Church, whether it be of Satan or Anderson? The fact of the matter is this. You, sir, are a masochist and , I assure you, you have definitely come to the right place!  Life is for the living, have fun or get the Hell out of the way! 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#12796 - 09/28/03 03:55 PM
Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
[Re: Wonka]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
No Satanist with a thirst of knowledge and progress can be a true Athiest.
The key element, doubt, should always be present. I have no reason to think a creature fitting the Judeo-Christian concept of God exists. If something presents itself as evidence towards the theory of God, I will look into it if it interests me.
The existence of such a creature has made no visible impact in my life, so whether or not he exists is not a factor in my life. Thus, he is not worthy of my attention. Satanism is a religion of practicality, not of belief or idle thoughts of no importance (unless one gains pleasure from them). The only exception to beliefs, is in the ritual chamber, and even suspending disbelief serves a practical purpose.
Wonderfully put. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#12799 - 09/28/03 06:27 PM
Back to God.
[Re: Perndog]
|
CoS Magister
Registered: 10/06/02
Posts: 11996
Loc: Point Nemo s48:52:31:748, w123...
|
I just wanted to suggest that if the god being described is the Judeo-Islamic-Christian "Yahweh-Allah-Jehovah" and this demented, homicidal, ego-imoverished maniac actually existed, any person of worth would be opposed to that God as a matter of principle. By comparison, Hitler and Stalin were sweethearts. Read your Bible.  End of sermon.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#12800 - 09/28/03 06:54 PM
Re: The Improbability of God
[Re: Perndog]
|
Registered: 08/20/02
Posts: 745
|
Quote:
The laws and rules propounded by physicists are representations of actual processes, and those processes are seen though repeating phenomena
Exactly, and as such the repeatability factor removes uncertainty and assumption, to an extent whereby a phenomena may become regarded as law.
Quote:
The principles underlying the phenomena are never completely understood; we can describe some things quite well in certain terms, but that doesn't mean we are using the same terms that nature uses.
Yes however the laws of physics are simply provable observations about certain phenomena, which offer scientists a solid platform to work from. They are not philosopher's stones, nor are they meant to be. They don't allude to the secrets of life, they are just observations concerning it.
Quote:
Science worked when the existence of atoms was proven and they were considered indivisible. Science still worked when smaller particles within atoms were proven, and that was thought to be the whole picture. Science works yet today when those smaller particles are made of still smaller particles. With such constant revisionism, it is difficult to believe that the complete explanation has been found for anything - there is always a deeper level to be reached, always something unseen that could knock an established "truth" off its pedestal.
Indeed there is revisionism in science, but remember something does not become law until it is repeatably verifiable. New layers or levels may be uncovered, however laws will still apply at the level they were first observed on. Newtonian physics still fits perfectly with our view of the world, on a macroscopic level. Just because of Einstein's relativity or revelations at a microscopic level science does not discard Newton's work, because Newtonian physics is proven at a macroscopic level. What it must do is reconcile the different levels or layers you speak of, not throw one or the other out. All that is happening is the view is widening to encompass more and more things, and of course it would be conveient to have a common thread tying all those things together.
I agree that science doesn't have all the answers, in fact I would be the first to say it, however we have come a long fucking way from the Middle Ages, and an even longer way from the Stone Age. This is largely due to science. If man's fate had been left in the hands of the churches we would still be in the Dark Ages!
_________________________
This message will self destruct
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#12803 - 09/28/03 07:25 PM
Re: The Improbability of God
[Re: Perndog]
|
Registered: 08/20/02
Posts: 745
|
Dr Atkins... Heh, perhaps it is the same good doctor who came up with the Atkin's diet, widely acclaimed by celebrities but now denounced by certain health organizations as dangerous! Perhaps he is now turning his hand to unravelling the mysteries of the universe... Satan help us! 
_________________________
This message will self destruct
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#12804 - 09/28/03 07:32 PM
Re: Back to God.
[Re: Nemo]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
And a hearty "amen" to that!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#12805 - 09/28/03 08:01 PM
Re: Back to God.
[Re: Nemo]
|
CoS Witch
Registered: 07/25/01
Posts: 12944
Loc: The Solid State
|
Just a digression...
I heard right from the horse's mouth today that Hitler was placed on the throne by Yhwh. Never had a chance to ask what Yhwh's game plan was, but I'd be very interested to hear the rationalization for this.
The guy did unwittingly show that Christians are somewhat between a rock and a hard place on this matter. Unless one twists and ignores Yhwh's eagerness to meddle in affairs, one has to typically choose between an interpretation that makes the deity look impotent, and one that makes the deity look evil.
_________________________
"Gentlemen, the verdict is guilty, on all ten counts of first-degree stupidity. The penalty phase will now begin."--Divine, "Pink Flamingos."
"The strong rule the weak, and the cunning rule over all." HS!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#12806 - 09/28/03 08:58 PM
Re: A Caucus Race
[Re: Wonka]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
You're right in stating that there is no ultimate benefit to choosing a side, which is precisely why I am on neither side. Theists would say "Just because air cannot be seen doesn't mean it's not there, just because God cannot be seen...", while Atheists would say "We can prove air exists, we cannot prove God exists". Well, to them, I say "What cannot be seen may or may not exist."
I study, I search, I reason...because I like to. While evil shall dominate good, neutrality shall remain forever most powerful, and it would be wise for the satanist to acknowledge this power and put it in his weaponry...it will serve his judgement well and most unblinded.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#12807 - 09/28/03 09:55 PM
Critique
|
CoS Member
Registered: 04/15/03
Posts: 217
|
Quote:
I welcome criticism.
Yes...I've noticed that quite clearly. Or is it, more accurately, conflict you welcome? Or perhaps even seek out?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#12808 - 09/28/03 10:51 PM
Re: Critique
[Re: Citizen_Parker]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Perhaps... I believe that it's on the basis of a good conflict that some of the most interesting and wise things are said and done... But I do learn from it, and take note of what happens in the conflict. I find it's one of the quickest ways to learn something new and improve one's logic, as well as to test the ground of one's philosophy.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
