407 replies to this topic

[General]

General Wesley, on 7 Aug 2009, 19:16, said:

The latter, I guess.

Anyone here a Satanist? Just Curious.

I once thought about that, when you are agnostic and searching for the truth, you must walk in all of the paths to see the truth, I didn't found truth in any kind of satanism. Satanists are like followers of Slaanesh ( Warhammer, God of Unrestricted Pleasures ) , anyone can do anything aslong as they have the power to do so, no restriction, some people build up churches for it and implemented some rules about that religion, but its actually contradicts all of its foundation, if one is to follow satanism, that means that person wants to be totally free, some of them even like Hell, sad but you can find all kind of person in this world :(

[amazin]

ehh

wish i could change my vote

i consider my self an agnostic now

lots of things have happened since then

[SquigPie]

I'm not quite sure if that is what satanism is all about (funny, had the same dicussion just yesterday). Its just an extremely anti-christian faith, while christianity stands for forgiveness (yes, that is the basic point of it, although many misguided people seem to think otherwise), Satanism stands for revenge and Tooth for Tooth.

LaVeyan Satanism have these rules:

The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth
1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
3. When in another’s lair, show them respect or else do not go there.
4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat them cruelly and without mercy.
5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal. (see sexual harrassment.)
6. Do not take that which does not belong to you, unless it is a burden to the other person and they cry out to be relieved. (see stealing.)
7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it
with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
9. Do not harm little children.
10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop. If they do not stop, destroy them.

Well, there are different kinds of Satanism. Some are merely a variant of Atheism (Wikipedia says that, not me, I'm just saying what they said!) Others are as you said, the belief in pure Evil. (Kindoff honored that they believe in that guy from my short story, a bit like Jedi huh?)

[General]

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked. Agree
2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them. - Agree
3. When in another’s lair, show them respect or else do not go there. Agree
4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat them cruelly and without mercy. Don't Agree Just ask them to go, if they not want to go, then there is a choice : either police or your fists or an equipment you wish
5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal. (see sexual harrassment.) Agree
6. Do not take that which does not belong to you, unless it is a burden to the other person and they cry out to be relieved. (see stealing.) Half True
7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it
with success, you will lose all you have obtained. Depends on if you believe in it or not
8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself. I think all humans are selfish so I Agree
9. Do not harm little children. Agree for sure
10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food. Agree but do not kill human animals aswell
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop. If they do not stop, destroy them. I agree so much with this one, its so so true

As we see , even some kind of satanism have good aspects in it, people wait for it to be completely evil, and I don't think what is writing above belongs to true Satanism, true one is evil, that one is commercial religion, like most of the sub-religions today I personally do not like satanism in anyway, though I once involved in it, thats no more thanks to God.

Edited by Turian, 12 August 2009 - 20:26.

[Kamikazi]

Atheist

[Mbob61]

Anyone who has spoken to me on this topic will know i'm a strong Atheist.
I very much belief in logic, reason and the laws of science. These things can be proven whereas most things in religion have very little solid proof.

Mike

[Kamikazi]

I agree with Mike and with the statement Overdose made

[SorataZ]

I am 95% Atheist and 5% fan of guardian angels, and that will stay as it is.

[SquigPie]

Ironic, that I should end out like Preacher, a lone religious man amongst a legion of Atheists, fighting too hard and too aggresive.

Atleast I'm not loobing Molotov Cocktails at everybody. Although I (frankly) do tend to fight by flaming.

Edited by SquigPie, 13 August 2009 - 19:25.

[General]

SquigPie, on 13 Aug 2009, 19:37, said:

Ironic, that I should end out like Preacher, a lone religious man amongst a legion of Atheists, fighting too hard and too aggresive.

Atleast I'm not loobing Molotov Cocktails at everybody. Although I (frankly) do tend to fight by flaming.

I am actually againist Atheism aswell but sometimes God just being just ' too God ' and doesn't give a clue if He is over there or not so I tend to be more gentle againist any kind of belief now, that was not true a few years before though, its impossible to know who will become what, even people can't know what will happen to themselves tomorrow, they may end up in Taleban camps as a volunteer when they were swearing at them yesterday, believe me this statement is so correct...

[Ixonoclast]

While I call myself atheist, I firmly believe that mankind must strive for "godhood". This "belief" of me runs through my entire life, as I support science, culture and art, as ways to get immortalized in the flesh, as immortalized in the chronicles of history.
Therefore I despise luddites and people against genetic research, AI and cybernetics with an almost religious fervour. Mankind cannot ascend without science.
If God gives you lemons, you become your god yourself and nuke God AND the lemons.

Besides, if God is real, why shouldn't we try to become gods ourself? Maybe we'd be a lot better at it than he? What right does he have for the monopoly on being almighty?

[General]

Ixonoclast, on 13 Aug 2009, 23:37, said:

Besides, if God is real, why shouldn't we try to become gods ourself? Maybe we'd be a lot better at it than he? What right does he have for the monopoly on being almighty?

Because He created you and this universe therefore He is better than us ? I don't think God is an angry person, that smart being who created the universe must be all wise and therefore He will let us ' free '

[Ixonoclast]

Turian, on 14 Aug 2009, 19:54, said:

I don't think God is an angry person, that smart being who created the universe must be all wise and therefore He will let us ' free '

That depends on what church you adhere... oldschool churches have a bit more violent God than modern churches.

[nip]

SquigPie, on 13 Aug 2009, 19:37, said:

Ironic, that I should end out like Preacher, a lone religious man amongst a legion of Atheists, fighting to hard and too aggresive.

Atleast I'm not loobing Molotov Cocktails at everybody. Although I (frankly) do tend to fight by flaming.

You can get away with anything if you have "Reverend" in front of your name, endless faith-based foul rantings prove. Go for it!

[SquigPie]

and in comes nipthecat with another "Religionz suuuxxxxx" post

Ahh, well, opinions are opinions. If all had the same opinion, where would all the fun be? Then we couldn't have discussions like these.


I don't hate Atheism, or well, I do, but I really don't want to.

Edited by SquigPie, 15 August 2009 - 08:11.

[General]

SquigPie, on 15 Aug 2009, 10:06, said:

and in comes nipthecat with another "Religionz suuuxxxxx" post

Ahh, well, opinions are opinions. If all had the same opinion, where would all the fun be? Then we couldn't have discussions like these.


I don't hate Atheism, or well, I do, but I really don't want to.

Hating any kind of ' extremists ' is ok though, but hating those who can live peacefully with others just for their beliefs or disbeliefs is not ok, as there is so much religious extremists around, there is so much atheist extremists aswell, this can't be denied.

[Whitey]

I don't understand the correlation between atheism and strictly logical, fact-based thinking.

Atheism, to hold that there is no higher power, is not fully factually supported. Of course, neither is any form of theism. But doesn't this mean that those relying strictly on facts and rationality would, unavoidably, be agnostic?

Agnosticism is the only choice in the poll that does not rely on belief. Argue how you will, but if you want to claim that you hold logic over faith in every scenario, you must be agnostic - until atheism or otherwise is factually proven.

[General]

Boidy, on 15 Aug 2009, 10:37, said:

Atheism, to hold that there is no higher power, is not fully factually supported. Of course, neither is any form of theism. But doesn't this mean that those relying strictly on facts and rationality would, unavoidably, be agnostic?

I pretty much agree with this one.

For example, being a scientist and atheist together means you solved the mystery of universe and seen and proved to yourself there is no creator of the universe , but as all of us should know, its currently can't be proven if there is a God or not, so this proves atheism is some kind of religion aswell.

[CodeCat]

Boidy, they are all beliefs. If you believe in nothing, you are neither an atheist, an agnostic nor a theist. It makes you a skeptic. If you're a skeptic, you don't really believe anything, and consider everything that you see to be just the product of sensory input. Essentially, you see the world as a sort of 'matrix-like' place which you see only through your own experience. You can't 'know' anything at all, because the existence of everything can be questioned, and there is nothing that you can solidly say really exists, except for your own mind.

However, atheism IS currently supported with facts, because there is as of yet no evidence for any gods.

[Golan]

CodeCat, on 15 Aug 2009, 9:27, said:

However, atheism IS currently supported with facts, because there is as of yet no evidence for any gods.

Fun fact: the lack of evidence for her existence is a defining point of a truly transcendent God.

Besides, it's not really a supporting fact for atheism - yes, it means that so far atheism hasn't been proven wrong, but that doesn't mean that it has been proven right either. Lack of evidence for theism and/or atheism is more of an agnostic thing, really.

Edited by Golan, 15 August 2009 - 10:02.

[CodeCat]

There can never be evidence for atheism because it is logically impossible to have evidence supporting the nonexistence of something.

Lack of evidence for 'A' does not prove 'not A'. It merely means we have no grounds to conclude neither 'A' nor 'not A'. However, by the nature of logic, it is impossible to find evidence contrary to 'not A' without that same evidence supporting A. Now say for example that 'A' means an object of some kind exists. It is now impossible to find evidence supporting 'not A', because it's impossible to find evidence supporting the nonexistence of something. As a result, because you start off with no evidence, the logical default is to assume 'not A' until evidence contrary to 'not A' is found. And this means that since there is CURRENTLY no evidence for 'A', the default logical assumption is 'not A'. Hence, for any object, one may assume its nonexistence until evidence confirming its existence is found.

Edited by CodeCat, 15 August 2009 - 12:45.

[Mbob61]

CodeCat, on 15 Aug 2009, 13:44, said:

Lack of evidence for 'A' does not prove 'not A'. It merely means we have no grounds to conclude neither 'A' nor 'not A'. However, by the nature of logic, it is impossible to find evidence contrary to 'not A' without that same evidence supporting A. Now say for example that 'A' means an object of some kind exists. It is now impossible to find evidence supporting 'not A', because it's impossible to find evidence supporting the nonexistence of something. As a result, because you start off with no evidence, the logical default is to assume 'not A' until evidence contrary to 'not A' is found. And this means that since there is CURRENTLY no evidence for 'A', the default logical assumption is 'not A'. Hence, for any object, one may assume its nonexistence until evidence confirming its existence is found.

Couldn't have put it better myself
Give this man a medal.

Mike

Edited by Mbob61, 15 August 2009 - 13:26.

[Golan]

CodeCat, on 15 Aug 2009, 12:44, said:

There can never be evidence for atheism because it is logically impossible to have evidence supporting the nonexistence of something.

Lack of evidence for 'A' does not prove 'not A'. It merely means we have no grounds to conclude neither 'A' nor 'not A'. However, by the nature of logic, it is impossible to find evidence contrary to 'not A' without that same evidence supporting A. Now say for example that 'A' means an object of some kind exists. It is now impossible to find evidence supporting 'not A', because it's impossible to find evidence supporting the nonexistence of something. As a result, because you start off with no evidence, the logical default is to assume 'not A' until evidence contrary to 'not A' is found. And this means that since there is CURRENTLY no evidence for 'A', the default logical assumption is 'not A'. Hence, for any object, one may assume its nonexistence until evidence confirming its existence is found.

Exactly. Contrary to your initial statement, there can't be a fact supporting atheism, only facts making it not unlikely out not outright false. Furthermore, the "default logical assumption" should not be "not A", but simply "I/We dunno", especially when seeing the topic at hand.

[CodeCat]

Not at all. Given no evidence, gods aren't any more likely to exist than a teapot in orbit around Jupiter. But you don't see cults worshipping space teapots. The default assumption without any evidence is that something does not exist. If it weren't like that, I could say right now that there is a leprechaun hiding on the other side of Alpha Centauri and you'd have to believe me. Since that is absurd, so is any other reasoning about the existence of something for which no evidence exists.

Edited by CodeCat, 15 August 2009 - 16:05.

[General]

I am curious about that subject so much, if religions are man's ( or woman's ) imagination and created with that way, I wonder who started it and how, we will probably never learn this but if I knew its created by a certain group of people and I see them in front of me, well... bad things gonna happen, very very bad things.