Satanism

Originally posted by AzureWolf: And what in the hell gives you the right to decide what true Satanism is?? Just because it doesnt fit into your snug little opinion of what Satanism should be then its wrong?? And since thats the way you think you will receive no apology from me. Where do you get off telling people that if they dont worship what you think is right then they are fakes and all their religion is a bunch of crap. So your now including Wiccans and other Pagans even other various religions on top of that just because they dont worship a creator? Get over yourself.

I think I'm educated enough on the subject of what you call "Gothic Satanism" to know that it is the oldest form of Satanism on the planet. Do you even know what I think Satanism ought to be. What I think it should be and what it is are two very different things so be careful where you tread when telling me how and what I think.
I never expected an apology from you but I thought you needed to be aware of when to stop yourself short of name calling just because my views do not coincide with yours.
I never said that you couldn't have your religion, I just added my opinion to the ongoing conversation. I can think what I want regarding the numbers of "religions" that exist, as can you, so I'll make you a deal...I'll get overmyself when you get over yourself. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
If you don't want my opinion posted, make sure you put a note at the top of your threads that my posts are unwelcome. I can honor that.
[img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: quote: Originally posted by Aviendha: *Snip*

You cannot expect to get anywhere by attempting to examine or engage theological arguments on their own ground, Put simply, this is all you need:

No one can prove the existence of any God,
Personal Experience counts for nothing, since it is wholly subjective.
Neither does “you must have faith first” since post hoc reasoning and failure filtering flaw this.
If you cannot prove god’s existence, Occams razor dictates that the most likely outcome is that God Does not exist, given our current state of knowledge.
There is no need to pay any attention to theology since its fundamental premise is therefore flawed as if you cannot prove anything’s existence you cannot claim to be able to interpret it.
Therefore as a result of the above we can dismiss religion out of hand, without even needing to go into any complicated issues.[/QUOTE]Dramnek,

I am not under some strange illusion that I can prove or disprove the Christian faith. There is simply no way of proving it as far as I can see, and therefore it is very easily dismissed.
On the other hand, I am extremely interested to find out why there are so many Christians in this world. What is it that drives them to the point of actually believing in it.
That is why I am having these discussions. I don't believe that Cerek is suddenly going to say "oh yeah, I guess your right", he is strong in his faith.

Aviendha.

Originally posted by K T Ong: According to the above, science will have to be dismissed out of hand, too.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here K T!

Science is proven every single day, and although some of it is nothing but theories, it is based on actual fact, and doesn't just rely on faith.

Aviendha.

[Neb]

Originally posted by Aviendha: quote: Originally posted by K T Ong: According to the above, science will have to be dismissed out of hand, too.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here K T!

Science is proven every single day, and although some of it is nothing but theories, it is based on actual fact, and doesn't just rely on faith.

Aviendha.[/QUOTE]Science is not proven at all. Far from it in fact. Just because the physical "laws" we have coincide with what has been observed so far doesn't mean that they are like that, for one thing our observations could all have been wrong, we might lack the senses to sense half of what is going on around us.

The "true" physical laws might actually allow for a God, or for spirits, or for anything, really. Prove Science to me and I will stop believing in any form of religion.

[K T Ong]

Neb about summed it up for me. I can elaborate more in a near-future post, but for now let me add that, like religion, science actually also contains a lot of things the validity of which cannot be established through either empirical experimentation or logical/mathemathical argument/proof. They must be accepted on grounds of faith.

Take the belief that there is order and regularity in the Universe, that all things in the Universe follow 'laws of nature'. How are you going to demonstrate this to me? And yet it is one of the cornerstones of science.

Face it -- science is a religion, too, however much pro-science people may think otherwise.

Originally posted by Neb: quote: Originally posted by Aviendha: quote: Originally posted by K T Ong: According to the above, science will have to be dismissed out of hand, too.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here K T!

Science is proven every single day, and although some of it is nothing but theories, it is based on actual fact, and doesn't just rely on faith.

Aviendha.[/QUOTE]Science is not proven at all. Far from it in fact. Just because the physical "laws" we have coincide with what has been observed so far doesn't mean that they are like that, for one thing our observations could all have been wrong, we might lack the senses to sense half of what is going on around us.

The "true" physical laws might actually allow for a God, or for spirits, or for anything, really. Prove Science to me and I will stop believing in any form of religion.[/QUOTE]Neb, I wonder where these “true” physical laws that you speak of originate from. Can you please tell me what the “true” physical laws are, because I obviously have not been made aware of them.

It is very easy for you to make a statement like “science is not proven”. What you are actually trying to suggest to me is, that since many things in science are not definite, and that there are many things in this universe that we cannot understand, God more than likely exists. I find this sort of statement rather irritating as you have not in fact made any statement at all. I know that there are many things in this universe that we do not yet understand, which we may never understand. But that doesn’t prove that there’s a God any more than a packet of Coco Pops does just because it’s just like a chocolate milkshake only crunchy.

I do not need to prove science to anyone to be happy with my assessment of life. I follow the rules of science, because if I do not, I will more than likely not make it through a day. I can’t walk in front of a car because it will hit me hard. Science says so. If I light a match and throw it on a piece of paper, it will burn. Science says so.
If there is a particular part of science that you don’t believe in, I suggest you raise that as an argument rather than just saying “Science is not proven”. And even then, if you can totally disprove something about science, you still will not have taken a step closer to proving God. If you can disprove evolution, that does not prove the existence of God.

Regardless, I do not need to prove science to disprove God. Also, disproving science does not prove the existence of God. I really do feel that you should be trying to prove the existence of your God, as disproving science will get you nowhere, and as I have stated earlier, nobody has ever proved the existence of God to me.

Aviendha.

[Neb]

Originally posted by Aviendha: Neb, I wonder where these “true” physical laws that you speak of originate from. Can you please tell me what the “true” physical laws are, because I obviously have not been made aware of them.

The "true" physical laws are quite simply whichever physical laws are the ones actually governing the universe.

Originally posted by Aviendha: It is very easy for you to make a statement like “science is not proven”. What you are actually trying to suggest to me is, that since many things in science are not definite, and that there are many things in this universe that we cannot understand, God more than likely exists. I find this sort of statement rather irritating as you have not in fact made any statement at all. I know that there are many things in this universe that we do not yet understand, which we may never understand. But that doesn’t prove that there’s a God any more than a packet of Coco Pops does just because it’s just like a chocolate milkshake only crunchy.

My point is that so often the argument against anything supernatural is: "It cannot be proven, it isn't proven, science is proven, science can be proven." And that the problem with that argument is that the exactly same thing can be said about Science. Except of course for "God is proven, God can be proven." which cannot be said about Science either.

Originally posted by Aviendha: I do not need to prove science to anyone to be happy with my assessment of life. I follow the rules of science, because if I do not, I will more than likely not make it through a day. I can’t walk in front of a car because it will hit me hard. Science says so. If I light a match and throw it on a piece of paper, it will burn. Science says so.

"If I sin I will go to hell, the Bible says so." "If I light a match and throw it on a piece of paper, it will burn. Science says so." Notice a similarity? [img]tongue.gif[/img] While the effects might be true, the why could quite easily be wrong and therefore the effects might suddenly not be true.

Originally posted by Aviendha: If there is a particular part of science that you don’t believe in, I suggest you raise that as an argument rather than just saying “Science is not proven”. And even then, if you can totally disprove something about science, you still will not have taken a step closer to proving God. If you can disprove evolution, that does not prove the existence of God.

Like I said earlier, I am not trying to disprove Science in favour of God, I am merely saying that there is as little proof of the "Natural" as there is of the "Supernatural".

Originally posted by Aviendha: Regardless, I do not need to prove science to disprove God. Also, disproving science does not prove the existence of God. I really do feel that you should be trying to prove the existence of your God, as disproving science will get you nowhere, and as I have stated earlier, nobody has ever proved the existence of God to me. Aviendha.

First of all I am not trying to prove the existence of "My God". For one thing I'm not a Christian, and disproving Science will get me to the point that you cannot prove yours so therefore you should not whine about people being unable to prove theirs.

Nobody has ever proved the existence of God to you, then tell me, how have they proved the existence of all of Science's precious little laws?

I AM religious but I am not Christian, I am personally of the belief that most of Science IS correct. But that it has some.... Loopholes, of some sort, or that it is radically different, somehow, so that the supernatural DOES exist.

I should know better than to try to write a good post at 3 am, please don't throw things if it's a piece of utterly incomprehensible junk [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Neb

I would like to respond to some of the things that you have just said Neb.

You said “"If I sin I will go to hell, the Bible says so." "If I light a match and throw it on a piece of paper, it will burn. Science says so." Notice a similarity? While the effects might be true, the why could quite easily be wrong and therefore the effects might suddenly not be true.”

I understand what you are getting at here, but my comments still stand. If I light a piece of paper with a match, it will burn. Throughout history fire has burnt paper. In the future, it is completely reasonable for me to say that fire will burn paper. Saying “If I sin, I will go to Hell” is not the same. There is no proof at all. How can you put these in the same category when one is right there in front of your eyes and the other is just a far-fetched theory, with no evidence whatsoever.

You said “Like I said earlier, I am not trying to disprove Science in favour of God, I am merely saying that there is as little proof of the "Natural" as there is of the "Supernatural".”
How can you possibly tell me that there is as little proof of the natural as there is of the supernatural. I cannot take that statement seriously. There is so much undeniable proof of the natural with so little (near non-existant) proof of the supernatural. If you’re going to doubt our very existence, then you are opening up another can of worms completely.

You said “Nobody has ever proved the existence of God to you, then tell me, how have they proved the existence of all of Science's precious little laws?”
You have obviously misunderstood me. I do not need to prove sciences laws to myself or anyone. It makes little or no difference to the discussion of God’s existence.

Finally you said “I AM religious but I am not Christian, I am personally of the belief that most of Science IS correct. But that it has some.... Loopholes, of some sort, or that it is radically different, somehow, so that the supernatural DOES exist.”
This statement is exactly what I am trying to understand from all of this. People, including yourself, believe in the supernatural for some reason. They cannot tell me why. Generally, it’s not because of any particular thing that has occurred in their life. They are just sure that it exists. I need more than that. You may not, but I do. I DON’T WANT TO PISS ANYBODY OFF. I just want to know where this thought process comes from. I want to know why they feel this way, because I do not.

That is all.
Aviendha.

[ 05-19-2002, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Aviendha ]

[lord_gabriel]

few thoughts here :

- ALL sciences are based on paradigms. That means on simple, obvious fact that CAN'T be proven. Therefore you can't be sure about them.

- Physical laws are limited to certain rooms. e.G. Newton's Law wich applies to our normal World is useless on subatomic levels.

- There is no prove or even a hint for god's existence

- Science proved that there were quiete a lot of exstinctions in the past. three major ones. at which of them Noah would have build his arch ?

- There are many scientific dating methods, are they all wrong ?

- Why does god care if anyone worships him ?

- WHY DID HE ORDER HIS FOLLOWERS TO KILL EVERYONE NOT WORSHIPPING HIM !!!!!!!!!?????????????? (he did, i read it)

conclusio :

- if god would exist, i would readily worship satan, for god is far more evil than satan could ever become (read the bible if you dont believe me)

[Yorick]

Science is not the only secular religion. Economics/Money is another.

Stockbrokers are the priests, market speculators the prophets, financial consultants the pastors, financial journalists the biblical scholars, the stockmarket the bible, and the bottom line is God.