Satanism?

I like Kharakov

 

There are a couple different Satanisms today.

"true" (if there is such a thing) satanism is a religion of Hedonism, they do not worship satan, but self. They believe in body over spirit. They do what they want.

They dont do a whole lot of ritual, that means anything that is. LaVey himself admitted that he did what he did for shock, not faith.

There was argument between LaVey, and collegues who took the faith more literal, actually worshipping the deity Set, the Egyptian god, who was taken with the Jews on their exodus by the name Set An. He was blamed for a lot of things, he became the opposer. The church split into.

Lucifer is a roman god who got a bad wrap when the Christians took over, and demonized him because the people favoured him.

There is the satanism of ignorance today, that metal head kids who know no better than to rebel against their parents faiths by "worshipping" the "devil"

There is satanism that actually worships Satan as the opposite of Christianity, and they are essentially Christians themselves, just on the other team.

None of these, with except maybe the ones who worship Set, have anything to do with paganism, aside from some similarities that the LaVey types based off of Catholic ritual, opposite of course, when Catholic rituals are based of older pagan rituals, that are also similiar to the ones created in Wicca.

In the middle ages, after conversion of Europe, lots of people didnt see the results that this great messiah had promised, lived pius lives to no result, and decided to go for the other guy in hopes of a reward. That is Satanisms earliest roots.

 

oh yeah, and atheists believe in nothing at all, so may or may not have morals, thats up to the person. some atheists may be hedonists, some may live christian morals just because the want to be "good folks"

 

Ok, before I say anything else, this must be cleared.
What path do you refer to then?

 

" I'll try and dumb it down for you: the point is you do not need to know every single bit of information about something to know generalities about that something. Some kid said to me once "You can't teach something about the infinite because you do not know all of it". I said "How can a history teacher teach history then?" "

You keep using analogies that cant quite relate to the subject...you cant compare history, which actually happend, to infinity, which is unknowable.

 

You're right...
"How can a history teacher teach the past?"
Because it already happened.
That has nothing to do with infinity.

 

That, my friend, is a secret.

 

Well then, my discussion with you is over.

 

You can know specific things about the infinite, even if you don't know everything about it (like knowing a few things about your friends, but you don't know everything about them).

A history teacher doesn't know all of history, but they can teach certain specific things that occured in history. I can teach you a part of history right now: I ate 3 slices of fresh italian bread with butter this morning. I don't know everything that happened in history, but I can tell you certain things that happened in it.

Likewise, I can't tell you everything about God, but I can relay my limited knowledge of God. I can't even tell you everything about my parents, but I can tell you a few things about them.

I can't tell you everything about me, because even if I started at the very begining and described up to the point I started describing myself to you, I would then have to describe me describing myself to you- ad infinitum.

I can tell you a few fundamental things about me though, that may change with time, but here goes: I like beer, hot chicks, music, conversation, sex, hot chicks, God, sex, and hot chicks, ohh, and cigarettes and coffee...and, well, you probably know this about me already- but I like hot chicks.

You already know things about God, but you just don't know that what you know is about God.

 

You're too immature to understand anyway. It's allright.

 

Lodui said "It's all stupid, once you realise that you are free"

Then I said "But it isn't. Once you know that, you are on the path to intelligence."

The path from stupidity to intelligence. It's only a secret to the stupid.

 

I suppose if I thought I had an invisible friend, I might think the people who couldn't see him were stupid...

So either I'm stupid or you've gotta metal illness. Works for me.

But I'm not the one who thinks the force that governs everything is here to do me favors.

Of course there are limits in the world. I'm a stone cold athiest. I understand that I can't fly. You're just arguing semantics.

I was talking about the mental need for god which limits you. The escape from god is freedom.

You can't speak in sophistries when you're talking about something abstract and pointless.

 

So youre saying you may not know "God" because he in infinite, but you know his name and a couple stories about him.

 

Stories meant to oppress a jewish population 5,000 years ago.

Old stories shouldn't mean anything to man in the age of knowledge.

 

Old stories should mean everything to man in the age of knowledge.

We are in our teenage years, we "know everything" so to speak, when we were
children we were more pure, and open to the way things were, and tried to explain them in our own way. not wrong, just different. We will one day
be grown up and know what the truth really was, the error of our ways, what to do about it and move on from there.

That will be the "age of aquarius" that is always spoken of

 

I'm too immature when you're the one trying to argue your side, yet keep it a secret?
Fucking grow up.

 

God's not invisible and I don't think you are stupid because you do not understand God, I think you lack experience. If I call someone stupid, it is usually a joke or to hurt their pride and make them a better person.

Actually, lemme give you a little lesson here that will help you in arguments against theists and atheists alike:
What you did is called bifurcation: Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy and "false dichotomy", bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.

So I will bring up this point again- you are inexperienced, not stupid.

Ok, but you said:

Which is a completely untrue statement.

Ok. You think escape from the mental idea of God = freedom. I would say escape from your misconceptions about God = freedom (greater financial, judicial, physical, spiritual freedom) because God grants these freedoms to those who are mature enough to have them, or those who will use them in a specific way that is beneficial to people as a whole.

Sophistry is subtly deceptive logic. When you start with incorrect premises, you will often arrive at incorrect conclusions, despite not commiting any major logical fallacies. The logic will appear completely correct, so will decieve those who believe the incorrect premise (that there is no God).

You claim you cannot speak in "sophistries" when you are talk about something abstract (and pointless), which is completely incorrect. You can use subtly deceptive reasoning at any time, like you did when you thought "you can't speak in 'sophistries' when you are talking about something abstract and pointless."

Sometimes, you don't get the joke that you just told.. sometimes...

 

Sorry. I promise never to tease you again. Honestly I do. Swear to God... Honest injun, and all that... really, I am being completely honest right now.

 

You think you can understand god, and I think that's arrogant. Once again, its academic to me when I don't believe in god.

If god is all-knowing, You don't understand god any better then your fish understands you.

Debating isn't going to help at all. We're not going to convince each other anyway.

Your idea of god exists in a very small world kharakov.

Isn't it that simple? Either there is a god or there isn't. Theres no in between... like I said earlier, you can say thing about god being abstract. God being love, or whatever, and thats fine. But then you can't claim to know god at all because its abstract.

I made it very clear what I meant from the beginning.

I'm free now and I don't have god. Once again proving god does nothing. He's an abstract concept you like to use to make you feel warm and fuzzy. It's fine, but I don't need that saftey net.

Theres no such thing as a correct or incorrect premise when god is abstract. When god is definite (and thus limited) there is either a god or there isn't. If we want to get technical I can prove major logical inconsistencies in the major religions (age of the earth), which doesn't matter if he's abstract. But if he's definate, hes fucked things up in the translation of the facts pretty bad.

So god is

A: Imperfect.
a being that gets mad when you do things that piss him off and throws tantrums when he doesn't get his way, even though he can't prevent the story from being fucked up that bad.

B: Fake.
I'm going with this one.

C: Abstract.
unknowable and undefinable. Nobody can understand it, and nobodys idea of it can be right or wrong, it just is and takes whatever form people choose to assign it.

If god's abstract, he doesn't matter anyway. God is whatever the fuck people call 'god' to make themselves feel good. I couldn't really care, but it doesn't mean anything to those of us who've moved beyond a need for it. We all can move beyond the need for it, and we all should considering people who believe in god have a pretty bad track record what with subjegation and genocide and all.

But the people who start crusades aren't the ones without god aren't the ones with the no god or the abstract god, they're the ones who believe that god's telling them to do things.

An abstract god is irrelevant to man, and an imperfect god is beneath man.

Hail Satan, Kharakov

 

It's not arrogant, it's logical. God can teach you about God.

If God is all-knowing, and offers to teach you of God, don't you think God knows how to teach you about God?

Actually, you might learn something. You don't have to admit it if you do, even to yourself.

Ohh, wasn't aware of that.

True. That isn't bifurcation in this case. It was when you implied that due to your premises either you were stupid or I was crazy, when there was a third option: that you are inexperienced.

God is abstract to you because you do not know God. When you get to know God, God is a very (metaphorically) solid being.

Actually, you didn't. The statement "Living without god's is living in a world without limits." isn't very specific. I didn't understand what you meant by that until you specified you felt that living with God gave you mental "limits". Like you would be worried about smoking weed if there was a God. Or drunk driving... cuz God would know oogabooga.... I think knowing God makes you a lot more relaxed about stuff... not that God doesn't harass you mentally, but you can always tell God to fuck off and God will stop... usually, unless God is in an annoying mood.

You do have God. You don't know that God is the one providing your freedom for you, even though you don't know God. God won't require you to know God until you are mature enough to handle God's call.

Actually, that is a logical fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi (or Irrelevant Conclusion). "I'm free" and "I don't have God" are your premises. Your conclusion is that "this proves that God does nothing." Even if you were free and didn't have God (neither of which is true), it would not prove that God does nothing, for God could be doing many things that you do not know about (and in fact is, right now, at this moment, doing many things which you know nothing about).

Actually, more often than I would like, God pisses me the fuck off. I suppose it's something I have to go through, but God Really Pisses Me Off sometimes.

You do want to know the truth, don't you?

Actually, there is. When you make an argument, you start with premises. Such as God Exists, or All Celestial Bodies orbit the Earth.

If we start with the premises:
a) All celestial Bodies orbit the earth
b) mars is a celestial body

We arrive at the conclusion:
c) mars orbits the earth

Which is wrong, or is it? I gave you the example to show how wrong premises could give an incorrect answer despite following the laws of logic.

Sure. I would enjoy your comments. Please reference your statements so I can look them up. No hard to find stuff, keep it online, if you will.

Hail Satan, Brother.