Choosing the adversary.

neologist wrote:

How does one know if one's conclusions are rational or a rationalization?

Case by case basis.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

Don't get me started about Satanism. You may as well be holding hands with the most pompous of Christians. Not you personally, of course. You'd more likely be smacking them on the buttocks. Same sh*t, different pile.

What is this suposed to mean? Careful not to set up a strawman....

This is a classic example of what I mean. Being human isn't about being right or wrong. Your constant use of rational thought is pompous to me. Oftentimes, people do things that don't make sense to others. Living out a religion may be part of a person's path to self-discovery. Who are you to say otherwise? Who are you to condemn them for exploring a worldview unlike your own?

Is there no where in Satanism that allows for giving others a break?

I was a bit rude. I'm sorry for that. Laughing

I admit I may be jumping to conclusions here, and speaking with equal measure (or more) of emotion: rational ratio.

0 Replies

flushd,

When Dr S speaks of a "case by case basis" he raises the important issue that "rationality" is normally limited by "specific context". The problem with religions is that they aspire to the status of "science" which correctly can be applied to much wider contexts. (By "correctly" I am speaking of the confidence level supported by evidence and cross cultural agreement)

The principle involved here is not whether allowances should be made for "particular rationalities" but the recognition that the plethora of such rationalities itself establishes their parochial nature. The usage of the term "worldview" is inappropriate.

0 Replies

"particular rationalities"

damn, that's fun to say!

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

flushd,

When Dr S speaks of a "case by case basis" he raises the important issue that "rationality" is normally limited by "specific context". The problem with religions is that they aspire to the status of "science" which correctly can be applied to much wider contexts. (By "correctly" I am speaking of the confidence level supported by evidence and cross cultural agreement)

The principle involved here is not whether allowances should be made for "particular rationalities" but the recognition that the plethora of such rationalities itself establishes their parochial nature. The usage of the term "worldview" is inappropriate.

I understand what you are saying, right up until you pointing out that the usage of the term "worldview" is inappropriate. Why do you think it is inappropriate?

There's a lot going on in my head, but I'd like to understand what y'all are saying first.

0 Replies

"Worldview" is inappropriate if you accept that "rationality" is context specific. The world/observer interface is constantly shifting and evolving. "Holy books" which were written in times of scientific infancy to rationalize historical social practices cannot logically be considered to expound "worldviews", even if they claim that status. Todays religionists seeking "certainty and stability" attempt to elevate these texts to the status of "Eternal Truth" at the the expense of having to do mental gymnastics to account for the textual nonsense concerning the earth's history or to neutralize the more beligerent passages. These "personal gymnastics" which consitute the "border patrol of rationality" are the essence of the failure to establish a "worldview".

Later edit:
I concede you might mean "your view of your world" but I think you would want to it to mean something more.

0 Replies

Ok, fresco. Thanks for explaining. I appreciate it.

Doc referred to "the judeo christian worldview that permeates our society and our paradigms" in his first post.

I was using the word worldview in this sense:
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

I suppose I assumed we were talking about the same thing: the living worldview as it is expressed by people (living) who have drawn from the Judaeo-Christian tradition, teachings, and texts.

0 Replies

flushd,

Point taken.

Semantic issues come to the fore when arguing from the general to the particular.
The Doc has conceded that his case may be "reactionary" which implies that his arguments require "a thing" to oppose. To call such a "thing" a "worldview" is to grant it general status for one part of the debate involving the anthropomorphism of "a group mind". To later talk about specific cases of individual belief implies closer scrutiny. An analogy in science might be to argue a the level of "the body" compared to the level of "the cell".

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

neologist wrote:
How does one know if one's conclusions are rational or a rationalization?

Case by case basis.

If the conclusion satisfies a personal need, it should be scrutinized carefully, don't you think?

0 Replies

Doctor S- Ah, the wonders of Google. When you first described yourself as a Satanist, I assumed (you know what happens when you assume ) that what you were referring to was the worship of the Christian concept of Satan. To me, that sort of practice was merely the flip side of Christianity......................a way of rebelling against the dictates of Christianity.

The only problem, was that what you were saying, did not fit into my concept, and I believe the concept of many others, concerning Satanism. You were so reasonable, so rational in your approach, that I found myself shaking my head. I had always thought of Satanists as a group of young, rebellious kooks. You had never explained what it meant to you to be a Satanist.

Well, I looked up Satanist, and found this, which is really consonant with the way in which I perceive you.

Quote:

It is important to realize that the Satan that they recognize has few if any points of similarity with the historical Muslim or Christian concept of Satan. The Satanists' concept of Satan is pre-Christian, and derived from the Pagan image of power, virility, sexuality and sensuality. To almost religious Satanists, Satan is a force of nature, not a living quasi-deity. Their Satan has nothing to do with Hell, demons, pitchforks, sadistic torture, buying people's souls, demonic possession, performing miracles, human sacrifices, cannibalism, and profoundly evil deeds.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanis3.htm

The funny thing, is that in all this time, I don't think that I have seen anyone ask you as to what your views are. I have a sneaking suspicion that many people thought as I did, that this Satanism was simply a reaction against Christianity. (Your earlier avatar seemed to solidify this idea) Now I realize that it isn't. Would you please describe as how you perceive your world view?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
neologist wrote:
How does one know if one's conclusions are rational or a rationalization?

Case by case basis.
If the conclusion satisfies a personal need, it should be scrutinized carefully, don't you think?

I know what you are saying and I agree to a point.
'if it works for someone, why fix it'
If that is the message you are trying to convey?
That's fine. If it works for you, cool. But preaching it is a whole different matter.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Doctor S- Ah, the wonders of Google. When you first described yourself as a Satanist, I assumed (you know what happens when you assume ) that what you were referring to was the worship of the Christian concept of Satan. To me, that sort of practice was merely the flip side of Christianity......................a way of rebelling against the dictates of Christianity.

In a way it really is the flip side of christianity, but not the way most people think. Satanism posits an autotheistic outlook, which for all intents and purposes is atheistic.

Quote:

The only problem, was that what you were saying, did not fit into my concept, and I believe the concept of many others, concerning Satanism. You were so reasonable, so rational in your approach, that I found myself shaking my head. I had always thought of Satanists as a group of young, rebellious kooks. You had never explained what it meant to you to be a Satanist.

Satanism demands study, not worship <--old Satanic truism.

Quote:

Well, I looked up Satanist, and found this, which is really consonant with the way in which I perceive you.[/color][/b]

Quote:
It is important to realize that the Satan that they recognize has few if any points of similarity with the historical Muslim or Christian concept of Satan. The Satanists' concept of Satan is pre-Christian, and derived from the Pagan image of power, virility, sexuality and sensuality. To almost religious Satanists, Satan is a force of nature, not a living quasi-deity. Their Satan has nothing to do with Hell, demons, pitchforks, sadistic torture, buying people's souls, demonic possession, performing miracles, human sacrifices, cannibalism, and profoundly evil deeds.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanis3.htm

Yes. Satan means a lot of things to the Satanist really. There is the literal meaning, adversary, opposer, or acuser. There is Satan the miltonian/faustian archetype (who happens to be a good representative for Satanic ideals) Some enjoy labeling the dark unconscious quantum-backdrop to reality 'satan' (I myself do not)

Quote:

The funny thing, is that in all this time, I don't think that I have seen anyone ask you as to what your views are. I have a sneaking suspicion that many people thought as I did, that this Satanism was simply a reaction against Christianity. (Your earlier avatar seemed to solidify this idea) Now I realize that it isn't. Would you please describe as how you perceive your world view?

Well. I tend to agree with Satanic philosophy as laid out by Anton LaVey, however the nature of Satanism calls for study, growth, and ascension. Likewise, my philosophy grows. I like neitszche a lot, wittgenstein, camus, rand, and of course the further study of critical thinking and propositional logic. Et al.
I've ended up a bit of an elitist. Socially, I am against egalitarianism and call for a meritocracy where those that couldn't pull their weight would be cut loose. People would be judged on performance, and results.
I am also for eugenics.
Any other questions?

(I'm my own favorite subject)

0 Replies

Doktor S

If I were to accuse you of being an atheist of who enjoys the notoriety that comes with calling oneself a satanist...would I be close to the mark?

..or is there a lot more too it than that?

(Sorry if that sounds rude, but you don't seem like the sort to burst into tears anyway)

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Doktor S

If I were to accuse you of being an atheist of who enjoys the notoriety that comes with calling oneself a satanist...would I be close to the mark?

..or is there a lot more too it than that?

(Sorry if that sounds rude, but you don't seem like the sort to burst into tears anyway)

The thing of it is, 'atheist' isn't a dogma, or a philosophy. 'Athiest' is simply being without god. As far as external deities are concerned, Satanism is atheistic. But there is much more to it than it's position on deities. In fact, Satanism deals soley with the here and now, and really has no position on 'afterlife'

0 Replies

Thanks fresco. I feel up to speed now. Smile

<nodding towards Doc....I understand your position now.

0 Replies

Hey Dok,

I have another question about Satanism. Does choosing an adversarial postion to Christianity not (ironically) appear to validate Christianity?

0 Replies

Being opposed to it does not validate it's precepts, only it's existence.

It is true, that if there was no problem there would be no solution required.

Just as a side note, 'christianity' is but one of many paradigms to be opposed. Personally I see the popular media and MTV culture to be just as bad, if not worse, in a contemporary sense.

0 Replies

In all seriousness I cannot answer right now because I have a bad case of wanting to be a smartArse

0 Replies

Wow this is quite an undertaking on your part dok. Very insightful though. I'm learning a lot from reading this thread. It's answering a lot of questions I have wanted to ask you, but hadn't had the opportunity to yet. Thanks for starting it.

0 Replies

Hey, Dok--
Maybe a little off topic...
Which of the five or six major, world religions do you think is the goofiest? Which ones are not so goofy?

0 Replies

Choosing the adversary.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know