0
discordia wrote...
think of it this way. imagine yourself in a past situation where you had to make some sort of decision but are restricted to the knowledge and circumstances of that exact moment, my bet is that you would make the exact same decision. time and again.and although we can make projections on what is going to happen given certain circumstances this projection is again based on your knowledge and experience up to that point. so yes, we can only know what happened in the past.
i always thought that crowley summed it up pretty nicely with his
do what thou wilt
its not like you could act any different anyway...
it makes people predictable as long as they dont know they are being predictable, tell them they are predictable and they will try to prove you wrong...which of course you could predict as well and so forth...its an endless regression of sorts...
similar to laplaces demon imagine some sort of entity that would have acccess to all the information in the whole universe and capable to calculate every single piece of information but in doing so would not affect the universe at all (i.e. its a hypothetical entity) it would be able to predict the outcome of a great many deal of things...if this kinda knowledge were to be passed on to the universe itself it would however affect and alter the outcome of the prediction and so on...
It's for this reason I find religion, namely Jewish and Christian, questionable. Here is this omnipotent being who wishes to test us if we are faithful or not, but regardless of what happens in our life we will have chosen the same path time and time again given the same circumstances. So can one blame the soul for not following the path of God, or is it God's fault for making a faulty soul? Why would he give us a test he knew we would fail only to reward that soul with eternal suffering. I haven't gotten fully in depth with Buddhism and Hinduism, but they seem to be a little more on par with being fair.
0
according to christian faith (probably muslim and jewish too) man has a free will.
one thing is however true, if god is omniscient he must have knew he was messing with his creation and to punish us for his mistakes is rather...hmm, childish.
buddhism is fairly interesting, especially zen buddhism which is basically meditation without the dogmatic crap...and some nice riddles too.
one thing is however true, if god is omniscient he must have knew he was messing with his creation and to punish us for his mistakes is rather...hmm, childish.
buddhism is fairly interesting, especially zen buddhism which is basically meditation without the dogmatic crap...and some nice riddles too.
0
A classic quote:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
-Epicurus
Also, are you telling me a nihilist isn't far off from being a satanist?
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
-Epicurus
Also, are you telling me a nihilist isn't far off from being a satanist?
0
you mean laplaces demon? thats just a gedankenexperiment coined by laplace
otherwise i dont see the connection to satanism.
do elaborate
otherwise i dont see the connection to satanism.
do elaborate
0
discordia wrote...
you mean laplaces demon? thats just a gedankenexperiment coined by laplaceotherwise i dont see the connection to satanism.
do elaborate
I thought you sortof refered to it with the Crowley quote, more or less meaning that both groups would just do what they felt like doing without fear of eternal consequence, although maybe for different reasons.
0
crowley wasnt a satanist but a magician (of sorts).
and satanists fear eternal consequences, i think...
i mean, they cant be satanists if they dont believe in satan (and probably god too).
do what thou wilt basically translates to do as you will and given the deterministic universe there is no possibility but to do so...
just that your will is not born of independent thought but rather dependant of the circumstances. or rather, it is not your will that kickstarts your actions but rather your actions that form your will.
and satanists fear eternal consequences, i think...
i mean, they cant be satanists if they dont believe in satan (and probably god too).
do what thou wilt basically translates to do as you will and given the deterministic universe there is no possibility but to do so...
just that your will is not born of independent thought but rather dependant of the circumstances. or rather, it is not your will that kickstarts your actions but rather your actions that form your will.
0
discordia wrote...
crowley wasnt a satanist but a magician (of sorts).and satanists fear eternal consequences, i think...
i mean, they cant be satanists if they dont believe in satan (and probably god too).
do what thou wilt basically translates to do as you will and given the deterministic universe there is no possibility but to do so...
just that your will is not born of independent thought but rather dependant of the circumstances. or rather, it is not your will that kickstarts your actions but rather your actions that form your will.
Aleister Crowley was...a lot of things. Not the least of which being a duche-nozle.
There are several differnet types on Satanism. I think most people would get the impression that being a satanist would be the practice of worshiping satan, as in the christian devil, which would be called Theistic Satanism, I believe. Which is...pretty much just a mockery of itself. But the sort of Satanism I meant is the one in which people see satan as a metafor for carnality. They consider their mebership themselves satans or devils, but most don't believe in God or an afterlife or anything like that.
I wasn't refering to Crowley as being a satanist, I was just saying that that particular quote is in line with a Satanist way of thinking.
0
Dante1214 wrote...
discordia wrote...
crowley wasnt a satanist but a magician (of sorts).and satanists fear eternal consequences, i think...
i mean, they cant be satanists if they dont believe in satan (and probably god too).
do what thou wilt basically translates to do as you will and given the deterministic universe there is no possibility but to do so...
just that your will is not born of independent thought but rather dependant of the circumstances. or rather, it is not your will that kickstarts your actions but rather your actions that form your will.
Aleister Crowley was...a lot of things. Not the least of which being a duche-nozle.
There are several differnet types on Satanism. I think most people would get the impression that being a satanist would be the practice of worshiping satan, as in the christian devil, which would be called Theistic Satanism, I believe. Which is...pretty much just a mockery of itself. But the sort of Satanism I meant is the one in which people see satan as a metafor for carnality. They consider their mebership themselves satans or devils, but most don't believe in God or an afterlife or anything like that.
I wasn't refering to Crowley as being a satanist, I was just saying that that particular quote is in line with a Satanist way of thinking.
The kind of Satanism you meant, that's the Satanism founded by Anton LaVey, right?
0
whenever i talk to white kids who think they are black, i feel sad. i feel like i want to tear my heart out, rip it to shreds, and let my dogs eat my corpse. And the same thing goes with people who are religious 2 da max.
0
hmm, satanism and their different believes or whatever arent exactly my specialty, my question though would be why call it satanism if it doesnt involve satan?
you could still call it carnalism or sth similar...
you could still call it carnalism or sth similar...
0
discordia wrote...
hmm, satanism and their different believes or whatever arent exactly my specialty, my question though would be why call it satanism if it doesnt involve satan?you could still call it carnalism or sth similar...
Anton LaVey called his religion Satanism so it would be seen as an opposite to the Christian church. It was kind of his way of flipping the bird to Christianity.
There's more to it than that, of course, but that's the simple reasoning.
0
ShaggyJebus wrote...
Dante1214 wrote...
discordia wrote...
crowley wasnt a satanist but a magician (of sorts).and satanists fear eternal consequences, i think...
i mean, they cant be satanists if they dont believe in satan (and probably god too).
do what thou wilt basically translates to do as you will and given the deterministic universe there is no possibility but to do so...
just that your will is not born of independent thought but rather dependant of the circumstances. or rather, it is not your will that kickstarts your actions but rather your actions that form your will.
Aleister Crowley was...a lot of things. Not the least of which being a duche-nozle.
There are several differnet types on Satanism. I think most people would get the impression that being a satanist would be the practice of worshiping satan, as in the christian devil, which would be called Theistic Satanism, I believe. Which is...pretty much just a mockery of itself. But the sort of Satanism I meant is the one in which people see satan as a metafor for carnality. They consider their mebership themselves satans or devils, but most don't believe in God or an afterlife or anything like that.
I wasn't refering to Crowley as being a satanist, I was just saying that that particular quote is in line with a Satanist way of thinking.
The kind of Satanism you meant, that's the Satanism founded by Anton LaVey, right?
Yes.
ShaggyJebus wrote...
discordia wrote...
hmm, satanism and their different believes or whatever arent exactly my specialty, my question though would be why call it satanism if it doesnt involve satan?you could still call it carnalism or sth similar...
Anton LaVey called his religion Satanism so it would be seen as an opposite to the Christian church. It was kind of his way of flipping the bird to Christianity.
There's more to it than that, of course, but that's the simple reasoning.
Yes again. Although, it's also just the use of Satan as a metafor people would recognize. They like the demonization of the term they use to describe themselves.
It's this whole phsycological...thing, and it really doesn't matter that much. The basic point is just that the title Sataist doesn't mean, "someone who worships Satan as a deity"
And didn't Crowley have ties to the Church of Set?
0
now its egyptiona mythology that is satanism...i dont get it.
and again, if it isnt someone who worships satan, why is it called satanism?
and how did this thread suddenly become about satanism anyway?
and again, if it isnt someone who worships satan, why is it called satanism?
and how did this thread suddenly become about satanism anyway?
0
discordia wrote...
now its egyptiona mythology that is satanism...i dont get it.and again, if it isnt someone who worships satan, why is it called satanism?
and how did this thread suddenly become about satanism anyway?
The flow of conversation led it there. And the Church of Set isn't so much based on Egyptian mythology and is considered a Satanist sect. look it up or something. And they use Satan as a metafor, as I said. I didn't give them the tittle satanist, they gave it to themselves, and it is used to refer to themselves. If there were not people who considered satan an entity, it might make more sense, but it just is what it is.
I fail to see why that is difficult to understand.
0
oh, its easy to understand. when i said i dont get it i meant it in a "this makes no sense" kinda way. basically because i dislike "borrowing" a name from a tradition and turn it into something entirely different.
well, then again psychology did that, but thats another story...
and yeah yeah, it was a rhetorical question, at this point it doesnt have anything to do with the topic at hand. i mean just to digress this far from a single metioning of a name is rather absurd...
if you want to discuss satanism you could open an own thread for that...right?
well, then again psychology did that, but thats another story...
and yeah yeah, it was a rhetorical question, at this point it doesnt have anything to do with the topic at hand. i mean just to digress this far from a single metioning of a name is rather absurd...
if you want to discuss satanism you could open an own thread for that...right?