The Dangers of Religious Hypnosis and Indoctrination: The genocidal faiths of Christianity & Islam., page 12

Originally posted by Lucifer777

"Dialectics is the science of arguing well" Augustine

I am not at all suggesting that philosophy is "only" about a "method," but that it is "essentially" about a "method," and it is a very simple method that can be easily taught, learned and shown by example, and from that subsctructure, the various branches of philosophy develop.

For example, I tend to adhere to a political philosphy (Anarchism) and to a moral philosophy (Thelema) and to the general groundrules of the philosophy of science, with regards to what is "objective knowledge (i.e., epistemology)," but I have arrived as such positions through the process of a lifetime of study and dialectics (debate / argument) and I can defend all such positions with arguments based upon human reason and intuition alone and without having to rely on a transcendent deity or transcendent morality; I do also amend my positions from time to time, so I am not suggesting that my conclusons are infallible, merely that my "method" is an orthodox philosophical method and I know of no other effective method.

I can concur with you on the principle of the scientific method and your political philosophy, so to with the dialectical method you hold to, I attempt to practice that method in discourse as much as possible; Thelemic theory is something I am only barely beginning to become acquainted with.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
The dialectical process of human development is a "process;" the person who starts with a statement that there are certain objective transcendental truths simply opens the floodgates of hell and lays the foundation for all sorts of fantastical utterences, and thus do we have the history of religion and religious morality, much of which is simply a restriction on human nature and human desire.

In way I suppose you're correct, the negative aspects of that beast you call organised religion is indeed of repression, it's a mass control freakery on a previously unprecedented level. The Catholic Church sought to immantize the transcendent and ensure that their "absolute truth" equalled stability, an anchor in the face of the terror of existence. It was a system based on fear, fear of the unknown, fear of the mutable, transitory nature of life.
Perhaps it wasn't so much a restriction of human nature, as being the disowned part of the collective psyche.
There is a fantastic series of lectures by Teofilio F. Ruiz on this very subject, called: "The Terror of History: Mystics, Heretics, and Witches in the Western Tradition."

Originally posted by Lucifer777

As for Nietzshe, he is someone I have intended to read for some time. Shall have to get onto it in the near future.

He seems to me to be the apotheosis ("the elevation to the rank of a god; the penultimate, preeminent") of the Enlightenment philosophers. He also had the admirable habit of speaking in the language of the proletariat rather than the in the language of the Kantian forerunners of Focaultian postmodernist mumbo jumbo which Dawkins and others are so scathing of (see Dawkin's essay "Postmodernism Disrobed" www.physics.nyu.edu...), and thus can be easily understood by the masses.

Just read the Dawkins essay. I can see his point with some of the excerpts he included, but despite this I quite enjoy Baudrillard and think Foucault's work (such as I have read) to be lucid and engaging, at times brilliant.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
A good place to begin with Nietzche is with "The Antichrist (www.fns.org.uk...)." Philosophy in my judgement does not begin until the death of god, for a human being cannot think properly if there is some transcendentalist babbling in his ear about "revealed" divine laws against humankind. It is not without good reason that Neitzche suggested that human history should rebegin it's dating system with the publication of the Antichrist, rather than with the alleged birth of the fictional religious fanatic, Jesus. Since philosophy essentially did not begin properly until Neitzsche, in my judgement; what came before was just the preparation by individuals whose minds were mostly clouded by the memetic virus of religion and the transcendentalist ramblings of religionists.

I shall take a look at the Nietzche essay you linked, thanks. But I would argue that philosophy really did start, and properly, with the Socratics, Plato, Aristotle onwards. They were still of a transcendental mind, even of a religious one (though the Greeks didn't conceive of religion as we know it). Another reason I see that philosophy was always intertwined with ideas of ultimate causes, the unmoved mover.
Not to disparage Nietzche, I have heard many great things about his work.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
Well the Capitalist elites obviously wish for a world which is under their control, but it will not be without widespread resistance; I think they would prefer martial law, since in Europe, probably most of the population are socialists, including much of the academia, intelligensia and the proletariat, and the elites are unlikely to get their way unless they can impose some form of tyranny.

I tend to adhere to Marx's view that societies will progress from slave societies to Capitalist societies to socialism to communism. Currently in Europe we have a combination of Capitalism and socialism, but I believe that the future will eventually evolve into socialism and communism, though probably not without numerous wars and revolutions and certainly one can expect the economic and military elites to seek to impose dictatorships which favour them, but there is usualy always eventually a dialectical reaction and resistance, and the harsher the experience becomes for the masses, the more potent become the conditions for revolution.

I'm not sure where it's all going, but for sure we are experiencing that bitter-sweet Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."

Originally posted by Lucifer777

I do wonder just how much the ostensibly astounding revolutionary wildfires in North Africa are really organic and grassroots in nature. Even if they are the fields (especially Libya) will be ripe for the pickings if Gaddafi is ousted.

In nations where the vast majority of people are Muslims, if Republican forms of government appear in the place of the current tyrannies, they are likely to be Islamic Republics rather than modern liberal secular democracies; this could even be regressive rather than progressive; it is one thing to have brutal 21st century dictators, and it is quite another to seek to impose the primitive laws of a 7th century dictator, slave trader and militant religious fanatic, particularly in Egypt which has the biggest army in the region and US military technology including F-16's. I could well forsee Israel anonymously nuking Egypt and beginning a global apocalyptic war.

Well, the arc of crisis looks set to ignite fully. Scary times ahead.

Originally posted by Lucifer777

I tend to think of religious fundamentalism and its attendant atrocities as rather effect than cause. Humankind will fight over just about anything, and an absolute belief is one of the best excuses.

You will find that, for example, among the European middle classes, they do not behave like football hooligans. Nietzche's "Ubermensche" is perhaps the simplest model of an ideal human being, and a replacement for the older models which were simply models of archetypal religious schizophrenics. Nietzsche's "superior man (and woman)" is already a model widely accepted by modern humanists, scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, atheists and much of the secular middle classes and academia; it is simply a model that can be defined as a modern, educated, rational, scientific, ethical, free thinking, sacreligious human being, and it is as simple as this. Unfortunately whatever political philosophy one adheres to, one simply cannot have an ideal society without ideal people and the Nietzchean ideal will take time to arrive and will require a process of education.

There's a lot to be said about education. The problem is when it's controlled by a power elite who has little interest in producing truly autonomous individuals.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
Plato was so opposed to democracy was because he feared that "mob rule" would be worse far than tyranny and oligarchy, especially when you have a "mob" of largely uneducated savages. Any modern society would have to be a technocracy and a society governed by educated people; no political system could be ideal if ruled by a bunch of football hooligans or by Islamic mullahs, whether elected or not.

Plato was an authoritarian at heart, he believed that the nature of peoples, and their position in society, was fixed and immutable. He feared mob rule as he thought that the lower breeds could never be educated. Fortunately we can see things differently today.
But I'm all for learning, perhaps not by a centralised authority. Not that I'm saying you're advocating that. I'm more in favour of anarcho-didacticism, if you know what I mean.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
The Israeli Communist system (the Kibbutzim) worked so well and created a crime free economic heaven for it's residents, but it was many decades in the making, and those born to socialism became adjusted to it as children; if one attempted that with the dross of the football hooligan culture in Europe it would simply be a nightmare and probably descend into gang warfare and the worst kind of anarchy; the conditions for a truly socialist revolution are thus yet to be created.

Didn't know that about the Kibbutz system. Will have to check up on the details. The problem with socialism is that if leads to external authority, institutions and hierarchy, the same old problems rear their head. I heard many favourable reports about Hugo Chavez' regime in Venezuela, but after looking into it in more depth much troubling news emerges.
I'm in favour of the emancipation of the oppressed. Just as long as it doesn't lead to further oppression. Which it often does. Again, as you said earlier, I'd favour anarchism.

Originally posted by Lucifer777

I think that the Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are rather the symptoms of the primary disorder of militant patriarchy.

Unfortunately the further one goes back in the history of religon, usually the more primitive and savage one finds religious cultures to be, many of which were blood sacrifice religions, not so far removed from the religion of the Aztecs; human progress in my judgement really requires the eradication of the curse religion. For humankind to stll be revering human sacrifice cultists like Abraham and relatively savage religious fanatics like Moses, Jesus and Mohammad indicates that we still have a long way to go until humankind is liberated from the savagery and barbarism of the past.

Yes, one would hope that the myth of progress, so beloved of academics, is not just a myth. Yet we're still rumbling away with ever increasing bloodshed with ever more efficient weapons of destruction to show for our "progress."

The more things change....

Originally posted by Lucifer777

I'm not a fan of this militant radical feminism that is a reaction to the male dominance of the world stage either. I don't think that the answer is to give leadership over to a gynaecocracy. One sex's ascendency over the other is an imbalance that is unsustainable.

Having travelled quite widely throughout the Islamic world where women are little more than slaves, I am most certainly a radical feminist, as is my current witch of a Scarlet woman; but radical feminism need not be about the supremacy of maternalism over paternalism; on the contrary; it is merely about the right's of women, the vast majority of whom are just slaves in paternalistic societies.

I fully support the rights of women, for there to be full equality in the relationship between the sexes, but I do see this tendency with the more militant, misandric faction of the radical feminists to want to supplant and evict men from the positions they previously held in society. To squash under heel the male sex. It is understandable that oppression breeds such feeling, but I don't see it as any sort of way forward.

Originally posted by Lucifer777

He didn't see the Rhodes Group as active after 1950 I believe. But then this is a moot point. His analysis, that we know of, ended around 1960.
I think that secret societies, as with religion, are merely symptomatic. The origins of the symptoms lie in a greater sociocultural context I think. But their effect on the system that birthed them is still measurable and important.

It seems to me that "regular" Masons tend to be conservative Capitalists and very much part of the establishment and that they are not at all a progressive influence; they are a rather antiquated society which operate like a Capitalist gang; certainly Masons as a cabal are financially powerful and they have placed themselves in that situation though banking and commerce.

I don't see the Freemasons as progressive either. How many regular lodges admit women, for a start. They are in interesting study however, and their influence on modern society is still measurable, though I'm not entirely sure how much they really play into the bigger picture.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
Those who are esoterically enclined in the modern world tend to be drawn towards the New Age movement, the "irregular" Masonic societies such as the O.T.O, the Neopagan and Neowiccan movements, Luciferianism and philosophical Satanism etc., this may be today's counterculture but it is likely to become a prevailing culture in the future which will become a major source of resistance to the current "old monied" establishment of the Masons and other Capitalist gangs of esotericists.

I think that that battle is definitely going on. Perhaps it might be better to not even view it as such though, but as a revolution of the collective imagination against the forces of inertia and stasis, though, of course, revolutions so often imply violence. Or at least a militant ethic, if not literally violent. I can see more of why you perhaps engage with the opposition so now.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
One of my old theology professors defined philosophy as the attempt to derive truth through human reason and intuition alone, and theology as revealed truth through "revelation." Of course theology is not a real subject, since the subject of the study, "theos" does not lend Herself to empircal observation, so one can just make up anything one likes about Her and it cannot be verified or falsified; that is the problem with theology and really it is just the study of the numerous ramblings of transcendentalists who were the enemies of human reason and human nature. If human beings began to think "rationally" and philosophically it was in "spite" of religion, not because of it; faith is the ultimate enemy of reason and vice versa.

She? Maybe an "it" instead? Could even be a "he" as the patriarchal religions have stated. Who knows? Could be a he in the morning, a she in the afternoon, some wondrous third sex in the evening, and an "it" at bedtime. Then he/she/it swaps to an androgyne for an eternity or three.

Originally posted by Lucifer777

Of course, it's beyond time to move beyond the conception of a capricious invisible bully in the sky in relation to philosophy.
I for sure would not censor anyone's desire to believe as they see fit to though.

If there is a Creator, I suspect that the history of religion and theology is simply an insult to Her intelligence and I suspect that She would rather we think for ourselves. Crowley's "There is no god but man (and woman)" is a better maxim to follow, since there are only really our fellow human beings to worship, and this is a central tenet of Luciferianism; that we are the gods and that we should accept no higher authority.

I'll follow this as much as I strive to be a freethinker.

Originally posted by Lucifer777

When I refer to absolutism I mean that there is no other interpretation of data or presentation of said data than the one you present. Of course you of have to settle on a conclusion, but perhaps acknowledge that there are shades of gray (and bursts of colour) possible in your black and white diagram.

An arrogant person is a person who always claims to be right about everything, even if shown by human reason to be errant in some way; I am not suggesting that I am right about everything; on the contrary, I often amend my views on various matters through the course of study and debate; it is merely that the philosophical method is a better method of attempting to derive human ethics, political philosophy, and to ask the question "What is truth?" for as soon as one submits to a trascendental method of arriving at the truth, this opens the gates of hell for all manner of daemons to fly through, and this has been the history of religion.

I am quite keen on the application of reason and the philosophical method to life. I'll agree with you, but shall say that I will indeed indulge in metaphysical speculation from time to time.
It can be quite fun. I shall try not to open the gates of hell when I do so though.

Originally posted by Lucifer777

The Wiki article you point to even acknowledges that neurobiology "has not isolated a single organic cause." The various causative factors in what the medical establishment title a "disorder" are also not final. There is much still to be discovered on the subject. Having acquaintances in the field of psychopathology I can say that the science, such as it is, is all up for grabs. Not a single psychologist or psychiatrist I know of will commit to a foundational theory on the subject.

Yes OK. However differences have been observed between the brain scans of schizophrenics and non schizophrenics but as to why this is, well I am not a neurologist and am limited to studying their findings; however I do believe that persons' suffering from the symptoms of religious based schizophrenia were probably the founders or models for many of the world's religions and that this has created a world where religious psychosis is considered to be "normal."

Yes, there is something going there for sure, as regards schizophrenia. I have no idea what it is though. I think that a radical shift in perspective may have to be achieved by the psychopathological medical establishment for the issue to be tackled properly. Dropping the term psychopathology may be a start.

Originally posted by Lucifer777

I should point out that I am quite familiar with the varieties of religious experience from a personal point of view and that I have had many rather "mind blowing experiences;" however unfortunately speaking about what caused such experiences appears to be against the forum rules of ATS, so I have been told. Certainly because the body of every human being naturally produces nature's most powerful psychoactive, '___', it is certainly "natural" for some people to have visionary dreams, waking dreams and even audio and video hallucinations, even without the use of shamanic psychoactives. It is quite possible that religious schizophrenics and people who report shamanic experiences simply have bodies which overproduce '___'; however I have come to consider such experiences as unreliable despite a lifetime of experimentation along the lines of Crowley's methods; in fact Crowley's methods of jolting oneself into the transcendental realm through a combination of Abramelin magick (necromancy essentially), sex magick and his various other methods (which I have been forbidden to speak of on ATS) can be described a form of self induced schizophrenia; I don't wish to appear negative about this method; on the contrary; it is very effective, but one is also playing with fire and the result is almost always what would be commonly perceived as a total loss of sanity, and the whatever "spiritual" type experiences one goes through appear to be totally subjective.

Therefore I tend to ground myself with human reason and human intuition. That there are other dimensions of reality, gods, goddesses etc., is not a knowledge which I believe to be any use to humankind, since it can just lead back to the delusions of "revelations," religion and the lost cause of transcendental morality which has been a curse on humankind for Aeons.

I think that Crowley will continue to be the Neopagan, New Aeon model for future esotericists who are drawn to the world of shamanic experiences. Despite being somewhat of a transcendentalist himself, fortunately his Thelemic philosphy can also be understood by pure reason and human intuition and utterly prohibits religious morality; thus will the Final Law hopefully prohibit future "revelations" by transcendentalists which will re-enslave human nature. For those of a more humanist and strictly philosophical nature we have modern models such as Nietzche, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, etc.

I didn't think you were ignorant of the subject relating to "mind blowing experiences," I had read some of your threads on the David Icke forum and here and it seemed you had knowledge of altered states of consciousness. It's just I saw that you were using a prejudiced definition of schizophrenia to further your argument.

I can agree that a grounding in basic rationale and material practices are important, rather than grand metaphysical conjecture as a foundation, which can be all hot air.

Originally posted by Lucifer777

Yes, but you do so dress for battle yourself, don't you?

I have to live up to my HGA (Holy Guardian Angel) invocation. Lucifer long ago seemed to me to be a more appropriate angelic invocation than Aiwass (High preist of Horus) and I have never really like priests and prefer to be the enemy of god than his ally anyway.

"Better to reign in Hell..." and all that eh? I can agree, but unfortunately I seem to be serving in Hell right now....

Originally posted by Lucifer777

An enjoyable conversation thus far.

Philosophy and intelligent esotericism junkies tend to be discussion forum addicts, but you have to look for them amidst the myriads of religious fanatics and their incessant ramblings.

Regards

Lux

Regards to you. Thanks for replying. I shall take a backseat now and read your further battles with the assembled Abrahamic adherents.

Originally posted by Extant Taxon

Thelemic theory is something I am only barely beginning to become acquainted with.

Part of the problem with victims of religious hypnosis and indoctrination is that they are essentially psychological slaves; and by "psychological" I mean that it is an invisible slavery of the mind. They live in a state of fear and self loathing, afraid to pursue their natural will, in fear of some demons called YHVH or Jesus throwing them into Hell; thus they are bound by the what Crowley referred to as the "sins of restriction" or what Nietzsche referred to as "slave morality (i.e., religious morality)," however both concepts are precisely the same. Being haunted by ancient demons who despise humankind, and who despise human nature can be as real to the victims as the voices inside the minds of schizophrenics. The human mind is very powerful program which can be reprogrammed and hypnotised and the demons of the mind can seem to be just as real as the world of the five senses.

In Christianity, for example, there are not only "sins of commission" but sins of "ommision," since there are numerous Biblical mandates to act in certain ways which clearly do not conform to natural law. Further I think that anyone who understands the edicts (the "do this" and "do not do this commandments") of Jesus and Moses can only come the conclusion that they are simply impossible to follow, and that anyone who did attempt to follow them would become a total enemy of the gods of nature (i.e., of humankind) and would become an entirely tormented soul.

The religious slave is often under the spell of what is perhaps the central hypnotic keyword of keywords, the word "love" and they are convinced that the psychopathic demon YHVH's hatred for humankind is love; they essentially appear to be in love with a demon which has enslaved them; it is a psychological form of Stolkholm syndrome.

The Scarlet Women and the Prophet

Thelemic moral philosophy frees the human soul from the restrictive bindings of religious morality and replaces the anitiquated models of the Virgin Mary and Jesus with the archetypes of the Prophet/ Hierophant (i.e., Crowley himself) and the Scarlet Woman.

The Virgin Mary is of course a sexually repressed model of celibacy and monogamy; she is primitive prefeminist domestic slave and a sex slave (i.e., a wife); while Jesus is the model of an archytpal religious fanatic, fake evangelist and fake healer whose religion was essentially a fundamentalist form of Mosaic Judaism. The Mary/Jesus archetypes are thus rather psychologically unhealthy models of "slaves;" who are bound to the demon YHVH.

The Prophet and the Scarlet women archetypes are very much embodied in the modern New Age and Neopagan culture; they are not merely imaginary by are being manifested on earth a 1000 fold and 10,000 fold, etc. Such models act as memetic antiviruses to the virus of the old religions. The Masonic, Christian, HIndu and Islamic models are in contrast very much buried in the past and represent the old Aeon; they are stuffy, conservative, boring, enslaved to tradition and essentially they are the dammned.

Babalon

Babalon is referred to as the Scarlet Woman, the Great Mother, and the Mother of Abominations. Her godform is that of a sacred whore, and her primary symbol is the Chalice or Graal. Her consort is Chaos, the “Father of Life” and the male form of the Creative Principle. Babalon is often described as being girt with a sword and riding the Beast, with whom Aleister Crowley personally identified. As Aleister Crowley wrote, “She rides astride the Beast; in her left hand she holds the reins, representing the passion which unites them. In her right she holds aloft the cup, the Holy Grail aflame with love and death. In this cup are mingled the elements of the sacrament of the Aeon” (Book of Thoth). In a more general sense, Babalon represents the liberated woman and the full expression of the sexual impuls

www.thelemapedia.org...

Originally posted by Lucifer777
The dialectical process of human development is a "process;" the person who starts with a statement that there are certain objective transcendental truths simply opens the floodgates of hell and lays the foundation for all sorts of fantastical utterences, and thus do we have the history of religion and religious morality, much of which is simply a restriction on human nature and human desire.

In way I suppose you're correct, the negative aspects of that beast you call organised religion is indeed of repression, it's a mass control freakery on a previously unprecedented level. The Catholic Church sought to immantize the transcendent and ensure that their "absolute truth" equalled stability, an anchor in the face of the terror of existence. It was a system based on fear, fear of the unknown, fear of the mutable, transitory nature of life.
Perhaps it wasn't so much a restriction of human nature, as being the disowned part of the collective psyche.
There is a fantastic series of lectures by Teofilio F. Ruiz on this very subject, called: "The Terror of History: Mystics, Heretics, and Witches in the Western Tradition."

I don't really commonly speak of what I believe to have been occurring "inter-dimensionally" in the history of organised religion, in debates with religionists, since it confuses them, and I prefer to oppose the religionists with human reason; however I do believe that there are other dimensions of reality where there reside both malevolent and benevolent ancient intelligences, and that religion generally makes the victim subservient and submissive to them.

Abramelin magick makes absolutely no sense to those who are not aware of other dimensions; however such a "magickal method," just like the philosophicla method, is in principle the opposite of possession, obedience and servility; it are really about becoming more psychologically powerful and attempting to insert one's will into history; "god's will" becomes the enemy and "my will" becomes paramount; and thus such a method constitutes "Satanism (adversarialism)" and "rebellion against god;" but it is not about the "worship" of any of the gods; on the contrary it is quite the opposite of worship; it is the magickian who demands the obedience of the gods; it is the total anti-thesis of the worship of the transcendental. It is this "will to power" which the religionists fear, since for them it is a virtue to become weak, submissive, enslaved and essentially "possessed."

Just read the Dawkins essay. I can see his point with some of the excerpts he included, but despite this I quite enjoy Baudrillard and think Foucault's work (such as I have read) to be lucid and engaging, at times brilliant.

Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life, collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose your lack of content. The chances are that you would produce something like the following:

"We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously."
.......
Visit the Postmodernism Generator. It is a literally infinite source of randomly generated, syntactically correct nonsense, distinguishable from the real thing only in being more fun to read. You could generate thousands of papers per day, each one unique and ready for publication, complete with numbered endnotes. Manuscripts should be submitted to the 'Editorial Collective' of Social Text, double-spaced and in triplicate.

Richard Dawkins.
www.physics.nyu.edu...

I generally try to avoid the use of the language of academia, and if I need to use such language I try to offer definitions of terms in brackets. Most of the population of the Internet do not have English as their first language and a third of global population are children under 16. I believe that any philisophical truth or argument, which is important, must be important to everyone, and should be able to be expressed simply.

Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" which runs to almost 700 pages, while certainly not meaningless, could be reduced to a fraction of it's length in essay form and is almost incomprehensible unless read in synopsis form. It is just a precursor to postmodernist ramblings.

Some of the most important political philosphers such as Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emily Goldman, Alexander Berkman and Chomsky have all chosen to write in the most simple language that even a semi literate person can understand; similarly with the philosophers of anti-religion such as Nietzsche, Dawkins and Hitchens.

Postmodernist philosophers are not philosophers in my judgement; they are much like the Internet "Trolls for Jesus" who just incessantly ramble on and on and attempt to make themselves as incomprehensible as possible to human reason. A philosopher who has something of importance to say should be able to say it simply and it seems to me that the postmodernists have almost nothing to say or to contribute to philosophy which is of any importance that I am aware of.

I shall take a look at the Nietzche essay you linked, thanks. But I would argue that philosophy really did start, and properly, with the Socratics, Plato, Aristotle onwards. They were still of a transcendental mind, even of a religious one (though the Greeks didn't conceive of religion as we know it). Another reason I see that philosophy was always intertwined with ideas of ultimate causes, the unmoved mover.
Not to disparage Nietzche, I have heard many great things about his work.

Beyond Good and Evil

It could be said that philosophical method "begins" with the Greeks and "ends" with Nietzche, but when Neitzcheans claim that philosophical method "begins" or "ends" with Neitzche, it is merely to make the point that with Nietzche we find a beginning of a truly "natural" and sacreligious philosophy. Such claims, including Nietsche's claim that human history began again with the publication of "Antichrist" are of course exaggerations and should not be taken literally; it is simply to make a point.

Moral philosophy has long been influenced by Plato's "world of the forms;" the idea that "absolute goodness" is transcendental (up above) rather than immanent (within), and this belief is upheld today by the evangelicals and Biblical fanatcs for whom their sadistic, jealous, human hating and demonic Biblical deity is the absolute definition of goodness; and since this demon war god is transcendental, it is beyond the human soul and the human senses; thus we cannot verify or falsify their bizzare claims, and they can make up any claims they wish about this demon.

Natural philosophy is quite another matter. We do not refer to a lion or a horse or a fish as "evil." We simply consider them to be living according to their nature; they live by their inner instinct and intuition and we consider them to be "beyond good and evil."

We might say "this horse is a perfect horse" but in the world of religion, the models of perfection are mostly models or imperfection; of persons who lived in denial of their nature, and who placed many restrictions on human nature and who are rather models of archetypal religious shizophrenics who often have clamied to have received revelations from the gods.

Crowley also claimed to have received revelations in channelling sessions from the Egyptan gods and secret masters, but it is significant that he lifted all religious restrictions on natural human behaviour, with the exception of violating the free will of another person, so he is a much more progressive model. Nietzche and his "superior man" on the other hand is a purely natural model, as is Crowley's Thelemic model; it is just that Crowley was a mystic, not purely a humanist or a naturalist.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
Well the Capitalist elites obviously wish for a world which is under their control, but it will not be without widespread resistance; I think they would prefer martial law, since in Europe, probably most of the population are socialists, including much of the academia, intelligensia and the proletariat, and the elites are unlikely to get their way unless they can impose some form of tyranny.

I tend to adhere to Marx's view that societies will progress from slave societies to Capitalist societies to socialism to communism. Currently in Europe we have a combination of Capitalism and socialism, but I believe that the future will eventually evolve into socialism and communism, though probably not without numerous wars and revolutions and certainly one can expect the economic and military elites to seek to impose dictatorships which favour them, but there is usualy always eventually a dialectical reaction and resistance, and the harsher the experience becomes for the masses, the more potent become the conditions for revolution.

I'm not sure where it's all going, but for sure we are experiencing that bitter-sweet Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."

I think that we live in the most interesting of times in all of human history thus far. Many of us in the First World have the keys to the freedoms of the kingdoms of he world, and the Internet age is certainly the ultimate communications revolution thus far, where we can speak from the sky to all peoples and nations, and where the whisperers of truths in the skies, who speak freely, can have more power than the multi-billion dollar media moghuls and the professional propagandists of the police states.

I may ramble on a lot, but it is quite premeditated and I try to "text mine" discussion group pages with certain key words which will attract search engine programs and place the pages on the front page of many searches. It is simply my personal method of propagandising and attempting to educate and change collective consciousness; if I only thought that I was debating with religionists who have anyway lost the use of their rational facilities, I would have given up Internet debating years ago.

Internet activism opens a gateway to a kind of global communication which has never before been possible. One can speak to a 100 and 1000 and to 10,000 and to the myriads of human souls in this way. To spread a lie requires an expensive army of professional propaganists and a submissive multi billion dollar mass media; a simple truth freely spoken can pass to all peoples and nations as the lightening flashes from the East to the West.

I do wonder just how much the ostensibly astounding revolutionary wildfires in North Africa are really organic and grassroots in nature. Even if they are the fields (especially Libya) will be ripe for the pickings if Gaddafi is ousted.

It seems that probably the a main cause of these revolutions is the Internet discussion groups and social networking sites like facebook. Of course there are economic problems also. we don't tend to notice rising food prices so much in the First World, but in relatively poor countries such as Egypt, where a main stable is bead, wheat prices have risen 30% in the last year, and they have to import most of their wheat. Meanwhile European farmers are growing rapeseed (for bio-fuel) and animal fodder for the livestock industry. As long as food is sold as a commodity it is in the market's interest to have the highest prices. Thus the situation is also created by the nature of Capitalism.

In nations where the vast majority of people are Muslims, if Republican forms of government appear in the place of the current tyrannies, they are likely to be Islamic Republics rather than modern liberal secular democracies; this could even be regressive rather than progressive; it is one thing to have brutal 21st century dictators, and it is quite another to seek to impose the primitive laws of a 7th century dictator, slave trader and militant religious fanatic, particularly in Egypt which has the biggest army in the region and US military technology including F-16's. I could well forsee Israel anonymously nuking Egypt and beginning a global apocalyptic war.

Well, the arc of crisis looks set to ignite fully. Scary times ahead.

Yes. Crowley's prophetical vision of a New Heaven and a New Earth is a vision of the future world of human freedom and the End of Religion, but he also envisioned an age of apocalyptic war where the armies of god will have to be mercilessly and genocidally crushed; it is rather the anti-thesis of the End Times prophecies of the Bible and the Koran. Unfortunately since the religous fanatics have genocidal war gods, the short term future for humankind is not likely to be good, especially in a post nuclear age where we are on the brink of replacing projectile weapons with new non projectile technologies which could have genocidal consequences. In order the create the New World, the Old World will have to pass away.

You will find that, for example, among the European middle classes, they do not behave like football hooligans. Nietzche's "Ubermensche" is perhaps the simplest model of an ideal human being, and a replacement for the older models which were simply models of archetypal religious schizophrenics. Nietzsche's "superior man (and woman)" is already a model widely accepted by modern humanists, scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, atheists and much of the secular middle classes and academia; it is simply a model that can be defined as a modern, educated, rational, scientific, ethical, free thinking, sacreligious human being, and it is as simple as this. Unfortunately whatever political philosophy one adheres to, one simply cannot have an ideal society without ideal people and the Nietzchean ideal will take time to arrive and will require a process of education.

There's a lot to be said about education. The problem is when it's controlled by a power elite who has little interest in producing truly autonomous individuals.

I still think that at least at university level there is an atmosphere of academic freedom and critical, analytical thinking is encouraged; probably most of academics in humanities departments are socialists and radicals to some degree or other; it is not quite an Orwellian system.

However in what in the UK is defined as "Secondary Schools (for 12-18 year olds)" the situation is quite anarchic in the worst sense of the term. Classrooms often resemble riots and children commonly do not value education. In the Capitalist system an education is seen mostly as a means to a career and to earn money, but even minimum wage jobs are becoming impossible to find for many of the youth; student fees are going up next year in the UK to 9000 (pounds sterling) per annum for many univercity courses, which students are required to borrow, and yet graduate unemployment is at an all time high, with many graduates working for minimum wage.

We are really seeing the transformation of First World Captalism, and due to globalisation, the exportation of many industries to the slave labour markets of the Third World. This may also increasingly radicalise the population and hopefully there will be a reaction from the socialist left. There is simply no hope for humankind in pure "anything goes" Capitalism.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
Plato was so opposed to democracy was because he feared that "mob rule" would be worse far than tyranny and oligarchy, especially when you have a "mob" of largely uneducated savages. Any modern society would have to be a technocracy and a society governed by educated people; no political system could be ideal if ruled by a bunch of football hooligans or by Islamic mullahs, whether elected or not.

Plato was an authoritarian at heart, he believed that the nature of peoples, and their position in society, was fixed and immutable. He feared mob rule as he thought that the lower breeds could never be educated. Fortunately we can see things differently today.
But I'm all for learning, perhaps not by a centralised authority. Not that I'm saying you're advocating that. I'm more in favour of anarcho-didacticism, if you know what I mean.

Anarchism is future ideal, but it would require an educated, technocratic and entirely ethical and civillised proletariat; we don't seem to have reached that point yet; much of the European working classes are depoliticised, dumbed down by their diet of bread circuses (sports, entertainment, celebrity gossip etc,); the welfare state is a wonderful thing but it also demands agricultrual and technological collectivisation on the traditional Communist model, and in the UK most of the formerly nationalised industries has been sold off.

We are still recovering from Thatcherism and there seems to be no political will to collectivise, apart from among the radical left who are currently a political minority and not represented by New Labour Capitalism. All the three major political parties here seem to be submissive to the will of the Capitalist elites. It is still early days yet in terms of creating the conditions for world Socialist Revolution and we seem to have a long way to go. I forsee no short term solution

Didn't know that about the Kibbutz system. Will have to check up on the details. The problem with socialism is that if leads to external authority, institutions and hierarchy, the same old problems rear their head. I heard many favourable reports about Hugo Chavez' regime in Venezuela, but after looking into it in more depth much troubling news emerges.
I'm in favour of the emancipation of the oppressed. Just as long as it doesn't lead to further oppression. Which it often does. Again, as you said earlier, I'd favour anarchism.

Chavez is dissapointing; he has the oil wealth to collectivise Venezuela and he does not do so. Yes he is authoritarian, but consider Castro and Guevara, they were far more authoritarian and militant; authoritarian socialism is sometimes a necessary response to militant authoritarian Capitalism. Latin America which was once infested with Neofascist US allies, often put in power with their assistance, has taken a swing to the Left, but it is not really radical or progressive enough in my opinion. Anyway time will tell.

Originally posted by Lucifer777

Unfortunately the further one goes back in the history of religon, usually the more primitive and savage one finds religious cultures to be, many of which were blood sacrifice religions, not so far removed from the religion of the Aztecs; human progress in my judgement really requires the eradication of the curse religion. For humankind to stll be revering human sacrifice cultists like Abraham and relatively savage religious fanatics like Moses, Jesus and Mohammad indicates that we still have a long way to go until humankind is liberated from the savagery and barbarism of the past.

Yes, one would hope that the myth of progress, so beloved of academics, is not just a myth. Yet we're still rumbling away with ever increasing bloodshed with ever more efficient weapons of destruction to show for our "progress."

The more things change....

There is a subforum on ATS about secret weapons technologies. I have been studying this matter for years and it really does look like future weapons technologies will be rather terrible and dreadful, and by "future" technologies, I mean currently developed technologies which just have not been used overtly in a theatre of war.

Even the Chinese and the Cubans are developing DEW (Direct Energy Weapons) technologies which will undoubtably change the future of warfare, however since some of these technologies, such as microwave weapons are extremely simple to build, it could also spell the end of US imperialism, as it could be impossible to protect an army of occupation if their enemes have similar weaponry, and it could even be impossible to defend any police state if a guerilla army had such weapons. I think that DEW technologies may be the ultimate "guerilla warfare" weapon, but they could also lead to indiscriminate mass murder; if you did not like your neighbour you could just microwave him anonymously, or if you were really insane, you could just microwave your entire town.
.
The Austin Powers era of Dr Evil and his "Death Ray" is upon us, and it is not a bizzarre conspiracy theory.

I didn't think you were ignorant of the subject relating to "mind blowing experiences," I had read some of your threads on the David Icke forum and here and it seemed you had knowledge of altered states of consciousness. It's just I saw that you were using a prejudiced definition of schizophrenia to further your argument.

Well bear in mind that only a tiny proportion of human beings are truly considered to be schizophrenic by the psychiatry profession. The most common mental health issue is just depression (i.e., unhappiness) which seems to me to a natural consequence of a dysfunctional world, and unhappiness can be cured without treatment, by simply doing things which make human beings happy.

However I am of the opinion that some of the world's major evangelists and religious leaders are and have been classic religious schizophrenics. Some of them such as Benny Hinn, I think may just be businessmen who are preying on the vulnerable and simply pretending to have the symptoms of religious schizophrenia, but I do suspect that cult Messians such as Jim Jones, David Koresh, Sun Myung Moon may have been truly schizophrenic.

The problem is that following models of religious shizophrenia such as Jesus and Mohammad encourages the religionist to copy such behaviours and to imitate the symptoms of religious schizophrenia. I am not at all suggesting that all religoinists are truly schizophrenic; they are simply suffering from religious psychosis and this is entirely curable; it is a condition which ends when they begin to analyse and reject the totally irrational and often contradictory beliefs they have and when they awaken from the state of hypnosis and indoctrination.

I can agree that a grounding in basic rationale and material practices are important, rather than grand metaphysical conjecture as a foundation, which can be all hot air.

Yes; human ethics are better defined by philosophical humanists without reference to a god.

As far as I am concerned the mystical experiences that consciousness can reveal can be fascinating, but they can also lead to delusion. The lesson of cult leader Shoku Asahara is in interesting one; due to immersing himself in a Timothy Leary lifestyle while in India, he began to hear voices telling him he was the Messiah, he returned to Japan, started a cult and made $100's of millions from manufacturing '___'; he then went on to plan how to initiate Armageddon and began experimenting with chemical and biological weapons; allegedly according to one of his biographers he tried to source nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union.

A lesson of the story is: having models of religous perfection which are models of "religious schizophrenia" can have genocidal consequences Futher "be careful about mystical delusions and experiences." If you hear a voice from god telling you that you are the Messiah (which is a commonly reported experience) remember the tale of Shoku Asahara.

Regards

Lux

Originally posted by Lucifer777

Part of the problem with victims of religious hypnosis and indoctrination is that they are essentially psychological slaves; and by "psychological" I mean that it is an invisible slavery of the mind. They live in a state of fear and self loathing, afraid to pursue their natural will, in fear of some demons called YHVH or Jesus throwing them into Hell; thus they are bound by the what Crowley referred to as the "sins of restriction" or what Nietzsche referred to as "slave morality (i.e., religious morality)," however both concepts are precisely the same. Being haunted by ancient demons who despise humankind, and who despise human nature can be as real to the victims as the voices inside the minds of schizophrenics. The human mind is very powerful program which can be reprogrammed and hypnotised and the demons of the mind can seem to be just as real as the world of the five senses.

In Christianity, for example, there are not only "sins of commission" but sins of "ommision," since there are numerous Biblical mandates to act in certain ways which clearly do not conform to natural law. Further I think that anyone who understands the edicts (the "do this" and "do not do this commandments") of Jesus and Moses can only come the conclusion that they are simply impossible to follow, and that anyone who did attempt to follow them would become a total enemy of the gods of nature (i.e., of humankind) and would become an entirely tormented soul.

The religious slave is often under the spell of what is perhaps the central hypnotic keyword of keywords, the word "love" and they are convinced that the psychopathic demon YHVH's hatred for humankind is love; they essentially appear to be in love with a demon which has enslaved them; it is a psychological form of Stolkholm syndrome.

Yes, there are many types of religious indoctrination and hypnosis. It exists for those who are also overinvested in the paradigm of the scientific method as an all-encompassing key to ultimate knowledge. The bare edge of quantum theory, for the moment, seems to have stymied science, no-one knows what the hell is going on there. I'm not levelling this criticism at you, but more in general.
Richard Dawkins, for instance, will most probably outright deny any possibility of a transcendent power in the cosmos (above and beyond a call for the end of organised religion as being a toxic artifice of the hand of man) when the real truth is that he, and other militant atheists, have no clue either way. Being more along the lines of an agnostic atheist myself - I see no reason to believe in a supranatural being (or beings) that I have no evidence for - I am not in the possession of the data to outright deny the existence of such as my knowledge of the universe and any other possible realities is exceedingly limited.
The philosophical and open-ended investigative position of David Eagleman seems far more valid to me:

"Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position -- one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story."

Also: the above does not represent cognitive dissonance. If I was to invest in multiple worldviews simultaneously there would be extreme dissonance. Possibilianism is merely the exploration of multiple data sets, resultant hypotheses, and the acceptance of all we presently don't know. The latter of which is a yawning chasm of ignorance. For Eagleman there should be a winnowing of the chaff to rid the scientific process of archaic religious stories, however.
I do enjoy Dawkin's presentations though, I've seen a number of his TED talks and such, and I can see where he is coming from. I just don't identify as one of his militant atheists, in the sense of actively combatting religionists. I choose a path of open enquiry, sans the war stance, wherever it may lead.

Originally posted by Lucifer777

I don't really commonly speak of what I believe to have been occurring "inter-dimensionally" in the history of organised religion, in debates with religionists, since it confuses them, and I prefer to oppose the religionists with human reason; however I do believe that there are other dimensions of reality where there reside both malevolent and benevolent ancient intelligences, and that religion generally makes the victim subservient and submissive to them.

Abramelin magick makes absolutely no sense to those who are not aware of other dimensions; however such a "magickal method," just like the philosophical method, is in principle the opposite of possession, obedience and servility; it are really about becoming more psychologically powerful and attempting to insert one's will into history; "god's will" becomes the enemy and "my will" becomes paramount; and thus such a method constitutes "Satanism (adversarialism)" and "rebellion against god;" but it is not about the "worship" of any of the gods; on the contrary it is quite the opposite of worship; it is the magickian who demands the obedience of the gods; it is the total anti-thesis of the worship of the transcendental. It is this "will to power" which the religionists fear, since for them it is a virtue to become weak, submissive, enslaved and essentially "possessed."

I tend to shirk "will to power" rhetoric and any sense of a direct oppositional dialectic to the religionists. I feel it's a waste of energy and a way to possible ego-mongering. I choose the third path, as mentioned in my previous reply. I can see your particular worldview here, but I don't see it as useful to me to define myself in direct contrast to a perceived enemy. I don't agree with those who invest ultimate belief in the Abrahamic faiths but my lack of belief in that particular narrative is not the total construction of my Weltanschauung. At least as much as I can maintain.

Originally posted by Lucifer777

I generally try to avoid the use of the language of academia, and if I need to use such language I try to offer definitions of terms in brackets. Most of the population of the Internet do not have English as their first language and a third of global population are children under 16. I believe that any philisophical truth or argument, which is important, must be important to everyone, and should be able to be expressed simply.

Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" which runs to almost 700 pages, while certainly not meaningless, could be reduced to a fraction of it's length in essay form and is almost incomprehensible unless read in synopsis form. It is just a precursor to postmodernist ramblings.

Some of the most important political philosphers such as Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emily Goldman, Alexander Berkman and Chomsky have all chosen to write in the most simple language that even a semi literate person can understand; similarly with the philosophers of anti-religion such as Nietzsche, Dawkins and Hitchens.

Postmodernist philosophers are not philosophers in my judgement; they are much like the Internet "Trolls for Jesus" who just incessantly ramble on and on and attempt to make themselves as incomprehensible as possible to human reason. A philosopher who has something of importance to say should be able to say it simply and it seems to me that the postmodernists have almost nothing to say or to contribute to philosophy which is of any importance that I am aware of.

I can only speak to the thinkers I have mentioned and the texts which I have read, of Baudrillard and Foucault. I shall leave some examples here and the interested reader can decide for themselves whether it's intelligible or not, And more than that, is it salient and pertinent? The postmodenists can fly off on rhetorical flights of fancy, yes, but those that I have read can impart startling insight and clarity into the human condition also. The following excerpt concerns Panopticism, one of the most relevant concerns of our age I think:

Foucault, Michel Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison (NY: Vintage Books 1995) pp. 195-228 - PART THREE: DISCIPLINE 3. Panopticism

To begin with, this made it possible - as a negative effect - to avoid those compact, swarming, howling masses that were to be found in places of confinement, those painted by Goya or described by Howard. Each individual, in his place, is securely confined to a cell from which he is seen from the front by the supervisor; but the side walls prevent him from coming into contact with his companions. He is seen, but he does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication. The arrangement of his room, opposite the central tower, imposes on him an axial visibility; but the divisions of the ring, those separated cells, imply a lateral invisibility. And this invisibility is a guarantee of order. If the inmates are convicts, there is no danger of a plot, an attempt at collective escape, the planning of new crimes for the future, bad reciprocal influences; if they are patients, there is no danger of contagion; if they are madmen there is no risk of their committing violence upon one another; if they are schoolchildren, there is no copying, no noise, no chatter, no waste of time; if they are workers, there are no disorders, no theft, no coalitions, none of those distractions that slow down the rate of work, make it less perfect or cause accidents. The crowd, a compact mass, a locus of multiple exchanges, individualities merging together, a collective effect, is abolished and replaced by a collection of separated individualities. From the point of view of the guardian, it is replaced by a multiplicity that can be numbered and supervised; from the point of view of the inmates, by a sequestered and observed solitude (Bentham, 60-64).

Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers. To achieve this, it is at once too much and too little that the prisoner should be constantly observed by an inspector: too little, for what matters is that he knows himself to be observed; too much, because he has no need in fact of being so. In view of this, Bentham laid down the principle that power should be visible and unverifiable. Visible: the inmate will constantly have before his eyes the tall outline of the central tower from which he is spied upon. Unverifiable: the inmate must never know whether he is being looked at at any one moment; but he must be sure that he may always be so. In order to make the presence or absence of the inspector unverifiable, so that the prisoners, in their cells, cannot even see a shadow, Bentham envisaged not only venetian blinds on the windows of the central observation hall, but, on the inside, partitions that intersected the hall at right angles and, in order to pass from one quarter to the other, not doors but zig-zag openings; for the slightest noise, a gleam of light, a brightness in a half-opened door would betray the presence of the guardian. The Panopticon is a machine for dissociating the see/being seen dyad: in the peripheric ring, one is totally seen, without ever seeing; in the central tower, one sees everything without ever being seen.

It is an important mechanism, for it automatizes and disindividualizes power. Power has its principle not so much in a person as in a certain concerted distribution of bodies, surfaces, lights, gazes; in an arrangement whose internal mechanisms produce the relation in which individuals are caught up. The ceremonies, the rituals, the marks by which the sovereign's surplus power was manifested are useless. There is a machinery that assures dissymmetry, disequilibrium, difference. Consequently, it does not matter who exercises power. Any individual, taken almost at random, can operate the machine: in the absence of the director, his family, his friends, his visitors, even his servants (Bentham, 45). Similarly, it does not matter what motive animates him: the curiosity of the indiscreet, the malice of a child, the thirst for knowledge of a philosopher who wishes to visit this museum of human nature, or the perversity of those who take pleasure in spying and punishing. The more numerous those anonymous and temporary observers are, the greater the risk for the inmate of being surprised and the greater his anxious awareness of being observed. The Panopticon is a marvellous machine which, whatever use one may wish to put it to, produces homogeneous effects of power.

Baudrillard is indeed fanciful so often, but I find his work interesting and poetic. His exegesis of the violent and immoral pornography of the media and of the "simulacrum" in other essays is quite marvelous.

Jean Baudrillard - The Spirit of Terrorism

Thus, it is no shock of civilizations, of religions, and it goes much beyond Islam and America, on which one attempts to focus the conflict to give the illusion of a visible conflict and of an attainable solution (through force). It certainly is a fundamental antagonism, but one which shows, through the spectrum of America (which maybe by itself the epicentre but not the embodiment of globalization) and through the spectrum of Islam (which is conversely not the embodiment of terrorism), triumphant globalization fighting with itself. In this way it is indeed a World War, not the third one, but the fourth and only truly World War, as it has as stakes globalization itself. The first two World Wars were classic wars. The first ended European supremacy and the colonial era. The second ended Nazism. The third, which did happen, as a dissuasive Cold War, ended communism. From one war to the other, one went further each time toward a unique world order. Today the latter, virtually accomplished, is confronted by antagonistic forces, diffused in the very heart of the global, in all its actual convulsions. Fractal war in which all cells, all singularities revolt as antibodies do. It is a conflict so unfathomable that, from time to time, one must preserve the idea of war through spectacular productions such as the Gulf (production) and today Afghanistan's. But the fourth World War is elsewhere. It is that which haunts every global order, every hegemonic domination; -if Islam dominated the world, terrorism would fight against it. For it is the world itself which resists domination.

Terrorism is immoral. The event of the World Trade Center, this symbolic challenge is immoral, and it answers a globalization that is immoral. Then let us be immoral ourselves and, if we want to understand something, let us go somewhat beyond Good and Evil. As we have, for once, an event that challenges not only morals, but every interpretation, let us try to have the intelligence of Evil. The crucial point is precisely there: in this total counter-meaning to Good and Evil in Western philosophy, the philosophy of Enlightenment. We naively believe that the progress of the Good, its rise in all domains (sciences, techniques, democracy, human rights) correspond to a defeat of Evil. Nobody seems to understand that Good and Evil rise simultaneously, and in the same movement. The triumph of the One does not produce the erasure of the Other. Metaphysically, one considers Evil as an accident, but this axiom, embedded in all manichean fights of Good against Evil, is illusory. Good does not reduce Evil, nor vice-versa: there are both irreducible, and inextricable from each other. In fact, Good could defeat Evil only by renouncing itself, as by appropriating a global power monopoly, it creates a response of proportional violence.

In the traditional universe, there was still a balance of Good and Evil, according to a dialectical relation that more or less insured tension and equilibrium in the moral universe; - a little as in the Cold War, the face-to-face of the two powers insured an equilibrium of terror. Thus, there was no supremacy of one on the other. This symmetry is broken as soon as there is a total extrapolation of the Good (an hegemony of the positive over any form of negativity, an exclusion of death, of any potential adversarial force: the absolute triumph of the Good). From there, the equilibrium is broken, and it is as if Evil regained an invisible autonomy, developing then in exponential fashion.

Still, the postmodernists are merely an interesting diversionary reading for me. I invest far more in the reading of history, and the cast of characters that comprise the philosophes of all stamps are as intriguing and colourful to me as the occultists. It's a great living story being told...

Originally posted by Lucifer777

Beyond Good and Evil

It could be said that philosophical method "begins" with the Greeks and "ends" with Nietzche, but when Neitzcheans claim that philosophical method "begins" or "ends" with Neitzche, it is merely to make the point that with Nietzche we find a beginning of a truly "natural" and sacreligious philosophy. Such claims, including Nietsche's claim that human history began again with the publication of "Antichrist" are of course exaggerations and should not be taken literally; it is simply to make a point.

Moral philosophy has long been influenced by Plato's "world of the forms;" the idea that "absolute goodness" is transcendental (up above) rather than immanent (within), and this belief is upheld today by the evangelicals and Biblical fanatcs for whom their sadistic, jealous, human hating and demonic Biblical deity is the absolute definition of goodness; and since this demon war god is transcendental, it is beyond the human soul and the human senses; thus we cannot verify or falsify their bizzare claims, and they can make up any claims they wish about this demon.

Natural philosophy is quite another matter. We do not refer to a lion or a horse or a fish as "evil." We simply consider them to be living according to their nature; they live by their inner instinct and intuition and we consider them to be "beyond good and evil."

We might say "this horse is a perfect horse" but in the world of religion, the models of perfection are mostly models or imperfection; of persons who lived in denial of their nature, and who placed many restrictions on human nature and who are rather models of archetypal religious shizophrenics who often have clamied to have received revelations from the gods.

Crowley also claimed to have received revelations in channelling sessions from the Egyptan gods and secret masters, but it is significant that he lifted all religious restrictions on natural human behaviour, with the exception of violating the free will of another person, so he is a much more progressive model. Nietzche and his "superior man" on the other hand is a purely natural model, as is Crowley's Thelemic model; it is just that Crowley was a mystic, not purely a humanist or a naturalist.

The main problem would be when people take ideas too seriously. Therefore the study of history is essential to the attempt to proper placement of such concepts and their context. Maintaining distance between ideas and the individual's consideration of them, by creating a buffer zone of play and humour, is one I practice.

Originally posted by Lucifer777

Well, the arc of crisis looks set to ignite fully. Scary times ahead.

Yes. Crowley's prophetical vision of a New Heaven and a New Earth is a vision of the future world of human freedom and the End of Religion, but he also envisioned an age of apocalyptic war where the armies of god will have to be mercilessly and genocidally crushed; it is rather the anti-thesis of the End Times prophecies of the Bible and the Koran. Unfortunately since the religous fanatics have genocidal war gods, the short term future for humankind is not likely to be good, especially in a post nuclear age where we are on the brink of replacing projectile weapons with new non projectile technologies which could have genocidal consequences. In order the create the New World, the Old World will have to pass away.

Let's hope that the West's cultural obsesion with the apocalypse won't take shape in reality. Of course, the signs don't look good.

Originally posted by Lucifer777

I still think that at least at university level there is an atmosphere of academic freedom and critical, analytical thinking is encouraged; probably most of academics in humanities departments are socialists and radicals to some degree or other; it is not quite an Orwellian system.

I've heard of and read about, as well as noted in academic works I've read, a rather constrained note to the thought and investigation conducted. Not all work of course, but a large number seems to be restricted by this pervasive tip-toeing around the works of other scholars in an overly reverential fashion at times. And I consider myself someone who values sound academic research highly. I've heard a few academic decry the limitations imposed on them by their peers and their institutions. Ted Friedman was one to talk about this in a recent Expanding Mind podcast.
I don't see academia as emancipated as you suggest. Of course there are some fantastic authors I greatly respect in those institutionalised halls of learning.

Originally posted by Lucifer777

As far as I am concerned the mystical experiences that consciousness can reveal can be fascinating, but they can also lead to delusion. The lesson of cult leader Shoku Asahara is in interesting one; due to immersing himself in a Timothy Leary lifestyle while in India, he began to hear voices telling him he was the Messiah, he returned to Japan, started a cult and made $100's of millions from manufacturing '___'; he then went on to plan how to initiate Armageddon and began experimenting with chemical and biological weapons; allegedly according to one of his biographers he tried to source nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union.

A lesson of the story is: having models of religous perfection which are models of "religious schizophrenia" can have genocidal consequences Futher "be careful about mystical delusions and experiences." If you hear a voice from god telling you that you are the Messiah (which is a commonly reported experience) remember the tale of Shoku Asahara.

Regards

Lux

Shoku Asahura eh? Interesting story.

Thanks for the reply.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
No one on this planet is completely rational, we all function at different levels of insanity.

Oh yes of course; I would not suggest otherwise. We are not totally rational. Particularly the female of the species; they seem mostly to live in a world of emotion. We all partly live in a subconscious world of dream, fantasy, visions and delusions.

The varieties of religious or mystical experience seem to be commonplace among humankind and perfectly normal, and I would not wish to suggest otherwise.

However the "religious" type experience can also be unreliable; many adherents of rather bizzare religous cults also claim to have such experiences; as do numerous evangelical Christians (despite their Biblical deity being a rather sadistic demon) and adherents of the Hindu faith, however the HIndu is more likely to have dreams and visions within the confines of their faith, such as visions of Shiva (or whatever deity); whereas the for the Christian it is more likely to be dreams and visions of Jesus; similarly with numerous other New Age and ancient world faiths.

For example, in my youth I consdered myself to be a Sadhu (a devotee of Shiva) for a time, and my mystical experiences seemed to confrim my particular path, but when one studies Hnduism and subjects it to rational criticism, it is a racist (caste-ist), classist cult entwined with ridiculous myths and miracle stories. The mystical or "religious type" experience unfortunately often ends to confirm the believer's beliefs, even if they are part of a rather primitive, barbaric and even silly religion which makes very little sense to human reason.

To use a common example, if one is watching a "horror film" it is a commonplace for some people to say "Oh that will give me nightmares;" and this is often literally the case, since visions, dreams and delusions of the human mind often tend to relate to powerful mental experiences in everyday life, and mental trauma and even fear can be caused merely by reading some newspaper report of an horrific incident which happened to someone else; this tramua and the related mental vision of it can belater recalled in the memory and reproduced in dreams and visions, as can feelings of fear associated with the experience.

I do believe it is possible that the scribes of ancient tests, may have had experiences, they could not explain within the knowledge they had accessibility to during that time in history,

To restate, it is my belief that many "major" religious leaders and founders of religious cults were suffering not merely from commonplace dreams, visions and delusions, but from a full blown form of religious schizophrenia, and there are many examples of this where religious celebrities in the modern and ancient world display many of the classic symptoms of a schizophrenic.

It is one thing entirely to have rather idealistic "New Age" mystical experiences and come out with the "Oh we are all One" mantra and it is quite another to create entirely genocidal religions, to incite Holy War against ones '"religious" enemies and to prescribe executions for religious offences; such as the 10 commandments, 8 of which are executionable offences, and one of which a a genocidal offence, for the crime of worshipping competing tribal deities.

To claim to have a "revelation" about "love" or something quite innocent is one matter and to claim that it has been revealed by divine revelaton that execution should be the penalty for those who work on the Sabbath, or for blasphemy, or for carving a statue, or for slaves who flee their masters, is quite another matter.

As for the scarlet women in biblical text, she can be traced back in time, all the way to Babylon and Sumeria, the holy prostitute and her bloodline is hinted at all through the OT.

"This is the Mystery of Babylon, the Mother of Abominations, and this is the mystery of her adulteries, for she hath yielded up herself to everything that liveth, and hath become a partaker in its mystery. And because she hath made her self the servant of each, therefore is she become the mistress of all. Not as yet canst thou comprehend her glory.
Beautiful art thou, O Babylon, and desirable, for thou hast given thyself to everything that liveth, and thy weakness hath subdued their strength. For in that union thou didst understand. Therefore art thou called Understanding, O Babylon, Lady of the Night! "

..The 12th Aethyr:

The priests and priestesses of many of the cults of the ancient world also served a sexual function, since the ancient rites of the mystery cults were undoubtably sexual rites. The function of what has been termed "sacred prostitutes," is rather a derogatory term, since the Biblical laws demanded execution for this, though the capturing of young females the purposes of sex slavery was approved of.

In modern Neopaganism and Neowiccanism, the practice of sex magick has been revived, though many practioners of these rites are still under the hypnosis of Christian morality and are sexually repressed and inhibited, and thus often merely substitute the chalice (cup) and athame (sword / knife), to symbolise the vagina's penetration by the penis, since they practice only a "pantomime" form of paganism. This entwinement of mysticism and eroticism is probably partly the reason for the Neopagan revivial and the decline of barbaric slave religions which restrict human erotic behavior; Temples of the religions of the past Aeon are generally not used for sex rituals, and rituals tend to be dry, stuffy, boring and tedious, and adherents are often encouraged to become enslaved to the sins of monogamy and celibacy.

Lux

Babalon

Babalon is referred to as the Scarlet Woman, the Great Mother, and the Mother of Abominations. Her godform is that of a sacred whore, and her primary symbol is the Chalice or Graal. Her consort is Chaos, the “Father of Life” and the male form of the Creative Principle. Babalon is often described as being girt with a sword and riding the Beast, with whom Aleister Crowley personally identified. As Aleister Crowley wrote, “She rides astride the Beast; in her left hand she holds the reins, representing the passion which unites them. In her right she holds aloft the cup, the Holy Grail aflame with love and death. In this cup are mingled the elements of the sacrament of the Aeon” (Book of Thoth). In a more general sense, Babalon represents the liberated woman and the full expression of the sexual impulse.

www.thelemapedia.org...

reply to post by Extant Taxon

---

I understand your points about agnostic atheism, it's my stance too.

I think detailed descriptions of God can be easily falsified. As there is no evidence for an omnipotent, intervening deity, i know that religion's descriptions are conjured, anthropomophism of a reality that man can't understand. In some cases i am a Gnostic atheist:- "God is a volcano" "God punishes humans with disease" etc.

But in regards to a source/creator i'm agnostic. I don't know what the cause of reality/the universe is.

All i know is that science does a great job of rationalising reality and so far there's been no need to assume a "loving" creator. There does seem to be a mathematical beauty to reality but i don't jump to conclusions, and i don't deny possibilities before i have evidence.

Anyway, just thought i'd share my stance.

I'm an agnostic atheist, anti-theist.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Extant Taxon

---

I understand your points about agnostic atheism, it's my stance too.

I think detailed descriptions of God can be easily falsified. As there is no evidence for an omnipotent, intervening deity

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousand of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so... In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

Richard Dawkins

Yes there is absolutely no evidence for a Creator who interferes with the laws of physics to save Her children. 200 million innocent people are almost always on the point of starvation while food products are being exported from some of the poorest nations on earth to fill the supermarket shelves of Christendom; thus not only is the Godess of nature (Mother nature) unable to prevent human suffering, but the Christians who claim to have the most superior religion have a long history of causing human suffering, impoverishment, slavery, Holy wars and Inquistions.

I'm an agnostic atheist, anti-theist.

The long history of theism (the worship of a transcendent (up above) deity) does not seem to have created heaven, but rather hell. Humanists are people who rather than worshipping what is allegedly transcendent and entirely separate and thus anyway irrelevant to us, they worship and revere their fellow human beings, and that to me seems to be highest and most sacred belief. Thus even hypothetically if there is a Creator, anti-theism is a moral necessity, since the theists appear to be part of the problem, not the solution.

I do however "believe" in other parallel dimensions of our universe which run alongside ours, and where there reside other intelligent beings much like ourselves. I use the term "believe" because I am unable to offer empirical evidence for what is not empirical to us; never the less I just seem to have had too many subjective mystical experiences of other beings, which although I am aware is one of the symptoms of the schizophrenic, and I am aware that such experiences can be explained by the psychoactive chemistry of the brain, such experiences have convinced me that other dimensions beyond our 5 sense reality are part of our reality, but such experiences only convince myself and unfortunately can never be shared.

Lux

reply to post by Lucifer777

---

www.abovetopsecret.com...
How to properly discern the good truth!

The link I gave might be swimming upstream slowly, but there are some very good posts on the 4 pages, ET_MAN's worth noting, nde and experience.

My son had an nde as well. He also had obe's in meditation. He said he was given the choice and though knew he would be far happier returning home, felt we needed him still so much and loved us all.

Impirical evidence is something I believe they have in paramilitary/black operations but alas, humanity has some interesting studies, and far too may coincidences to shake a fist at.

Btu there is a logic as well.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

---

I will concur for the most part. I see no reason to believe in a preternatural entity I have no evidence for. In the end I am an atheist really, but not of the more absolutist militant variety who will outright deny the possibility of unknown forces in the cosmos.
But I'm not an anti-theist. I don't directly oppose theism in the secular sense, I merely do not believe as they do.

reply to post by Extant Taxon

---

but not of the more absolutist militant variety who will outright deny the possibility of unknown forces in the cosmos.

Well what do you mean? Describe militant? Of course there are "unknown" forces out there. Throughout recent history forces have become known from perviously unknown, that's what's great about science. As i've said my position comes from agnosticism (not knowing) I don't preach what i could possibly not reveal. That's what religion deals in; revealed wisdom. I think it's backward, it's false comfort, and it's a totalitarian edict on an absolute scale.

There is very much we don't understand about the cosmos, about reality.

I don't think religion has the answers. Just lewd guesses and ill-informed attempts at inferring absolute/objective morals down from something described as the ultimate absolute. It comes from a period history where much was unknown, myth was formed instead of fact; even to such unanimate natural events such as earthquakes, disease, and erupting volcanoes. I don't think there's any need to irrationally guess the cause of reality or the mechanics behind it. I much prefer the rational, cautious approach.

I think we share many concerns,; i don't consider myself aggressive or "militant" - I just have a destinct contempt for the very ideology of organised religion. I'm a humanist though, i want the best for my fellow comrades as i hope we all do.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

---

I'm not referring to you personally, more in general. Whilst militant atheism usually refers to an abhorrence of all that is associated with organised religion, I see that this can often bleed over (in the "absolutist militant atheist" variety I referred to) to a complete denial of any possible metaphysical force in the universe, and conflation of such potentialities with the despised god figure of the bible such militant positions often take.

I'm simply not an active anti-theist as I am invested in the reading of the historical record across the board and such prejudiced and non-objective views of religion many absolutist militant atheists hold are of no use to me.
That is all.

I fully support the scientific method in the exploration of the world around us, as a method entirely more useful and appropriate to such things, whereas organised religion is of no such use in that regard.

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
............. Whilst militant atheism usually refers to an abhorrence of all that is associated with organised religion,

I think that if a person was to define themselves as a "militant" anti-Buddhist, it would be a little silly, since Buddhists are rather peaceful and gentle creatures, and even the Japanese Buddhists who committed the genocide of the Koreans and Japanese in the last century did not do so because of Buddhism, but in spite of Buddhism. However, both the deities of Christianity and Islam are primitive tribal war gods, and are entirely militant and genocidal religions with a centuries' long history which establishes this, and further both have rather genocidal apocalyptic End Times propheces which predict the total global prevailence of their religions, and further, both religions are not merely religions, but have an inbuilt political philosophy of theocratic tryanny and system of primitive law.

Even the Neomarxist Christopher Hitichens who despises George W. Bush, supported the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and was one of the few Neomarxists to do so. Hitchens is also, of course, evangelically anti-Christian, however his support of US imperialism, was probably not because the Bible is any less genocidal and militant than the Koran, but the Christians live in the homelands of Western civilization and their faith has been modernised somewhat by humanist values; this is not so much the case in the Islamic world, where many still live in a culture which has been much less affected by the philosophies of the Enlightenment and by humanist values and where many fanatics seek to impose the primitive Sharia Law.

Unfortunately I think that many people still have an idealistic view of religion and are unaware of the dangers and genocidal consequences of believing in ancient war gods, since if one defines a primitive and sadistic war god as the absolute definition of good, then it is a natural consequence that a person will tend to emulate those qualities. Studies on the evil of religion and the psychological harm faith can do have appeared only relatively recently in human history; in the past religion has always been treated with kid gloves. Had the slective content of sites such as www.evilbible.com... been published and widely known even in the 19th century I am sure that most Christian would have been shocked. See also www.truthbeknown.com... (Evil Koran quotes).

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that Allah is with the righteous. Quran 9:123,

We can stand back, watch and observe, but I am quite sure that there will still be a dialectical respnse to militant Islam by the West and by Israel if the current uprisings in the Islamic states transform into Islamic republics.

I see that this can often bleed over (in the "absolutist militant atheist" variety I referred to) to a complete denial of any possible metaphysical force in the universe,

Consciousness is of course produced by the physical brain, but consciousness is most certainly non physical and it is very common to have mystical and visionary experiences; this seems to be entirely natural; this does not of course mean that such experiences are produced "outside" consciousness, it is only that it seems that way.

For the person who hears the voices of gods & phantoms, this is occurring "inside" consciousness not outside; we might dream that we are standing on top of the mountain, but of course the mountain is a scene which is created "inside" the consciousness, just as when a reigionist has a vision of Krishna, the vision is being produced "inside" consciousness and only gives the impression of being transcendent (up above.)

Crowley's claims to have had "revelations" from secret Masters of the Egyptian pantheon were also, of course occurring "inside" his consciousness, but since I have had similar expereinces, I tend to "believe" that there are other intelligences on other dimensions which cannot be observed by us, but who can observe our material realm; this may well be what our ancestors have referred to as the "gods." Never the less I consider all such claims to be questionable due to the entirely subjective nature of consciousness, where dreams and visions tend to be different according to the culture that surrounds oneself and according to ones own personal language, etc.

A German Christian may well have a vision of Jesus who is a blue eyed blond haired Aryan in a white robe who speaks to them in perfect German in their local regional accent; this is unsurprising since German stained glass church windows often display Jesus as an Aryan Tuetonic Knight, just as it is unsurprising when a child in China, who has been watching a horror movie about vampires has a nightmare about about vampires who speak perfect Chinese in the child's regional accent.

Part of the problem with people who refer to a transcendent "up above" Creator is that they can just make up anything they like about Her, and assign numerous unnatural laws to Her, and it cannot be proven or disproven, thus the numerous contradictory laws and religious beliefs.

If there is a transcendent Creator, She clearly does not communicate with us, and if She had communicated with Jesus or Mohammad, She was clearly unable to explain the theory of general relativity to them, and they certainly ended up with two quite different religions. I think that if She had any plans to communicate with human beings, She would have to be a genius of such extraordinarily high intelligence, that I doubt that She would have communicated with illiterate religious fanatics such as Jesus and Mohammad, and would be more likely to choose a Richard Dawkins or a Christopher Hitchens, but She apparently does not do so.

The kind of being who has the ability to communicate with 7 billion people simultaneously and to know their every thought would be more like a super-computer; and add to the this the uncountable hypothetical population of heaven and hell. There may be something to the idea that each person has "familiars" which are intelligent beings which observe the person throughout their lives, and this was a belief in ancient Egypt much like the Christian concept of "angels," or the New Age belief in personal "spirit guides" but I think it unlikely that there could be a being able to know every thought of trillions of consciousnesses simultaneously.

Thus I think it best to use our own intelligence, reason and the philosophical method to discern "what is truth?" and to question all religious ramblings which do not conform to human nature and human reason. Having said all this, I am still entirely fascinated with the study of ancient and modern religions, esoteric knowedge and the mystery religions.

Lux

reply to post by Lucifer777

---

Yes, of course, I understand your position as we've covered the ground over previous replies. Whilst also repeating myself to some degree I'll merely re-state that David Eagleman's position is far more valid to me. But here I'll expand a bit more, courtesy of Eagleman himself, on what this stance is:

"What amazes me is the amount of certainty out there. So when you walk into a book store you see the books by the neo-atheists [Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al] and the books by the fundamentally religious and they argue with each other, and they polarise each other and they are spending all of their energies on that. And it has felt to me for a while like there should be another voice here because it seems too limited for a modern discussion. Because if you think about the space of possibilities, right?

So take the whole Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition that's one point in the possibility space; take the eastern religions, that's another point; take the idea that we're mechanical pieces and parts and we shut off when we die, that's another point; uh..., we were planted here by space aliens, another point, right. When you start populating the space what you realise is that there are vast landscapes in between these possibilities and all of these points are infinitesimally unlikely, right? But together they add to up to this possibility space and I really fear that there is not a discussion about that space, instead the entire discussion has been limited to what I consider perhaps is this false dichotomy: this God versus no-God, and that is where the conversation has ended. Now some people in the middle position use the term agnostic, um, I don't use that term because I, the way I see it used is a weak term. Often when people say they're agnostic what they mean is: "I'm not sure whether the guy with the beard on the cloud exists or doesn't exist." Right? So I don't call myself an agnostic. I call myself a Possibilian.
[Audience laughter]
And the idea with Possibilianism is an active exploration of new ideas and a comfort with the scientific temperament of creativity and holding multiple hypotheses in mind.'

Bracketed comments mine.

The above quoted extract is from the presentation given by Eagleman available on the following page:

Possibilian.com


.

Originally posted by Lucifer777

Originally posted by Extant Taxon

So take the whole Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition that's one point in the possibility space; take the eastern religions, that's another point; take the idea that we're mechanical pieces and parts and we shut off when we die, that's another point; uh..., we were planted here by space aliens, another point, right. When you start populating the space what you realise is that there are vast landscapes in between these possibilities and all of these points are infinitesimally unlikely, right? But together they add to up to this possibility space and I really fear that there is not a discussion about that space, instead the entire discussion has been limited to what I consider perhaps is this false dichotomy: this God versus no-God, and that is where the conversation has ended.

......And the idea with Possibilianism is an active exploration of new ideas and a comfort with the scientific temperament of creativity and holding multiple hypotheses in mind.'

I don't think that Dawkins, Harris and other philosophical atheists are opposed to "Possibilianism," and thus the argument above appears to be a straw man.

I'm afraid I don't see it as a straw man. If you were to view the rest of the video I linked to on the possibilian.com webpage, or view other presentations by Eagleman, further context would be given to the quote - in that the present discourse engaged in by the neo-atheists and the religious fundamentalists gives rise to a needlessly polarised discussion, a false dichotomy, to the wider public where it concerns this matter. Whether or not the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris are opposed in their wider philosophical worldviews to Possibilianism is not the argument essentially.
It's the lack of choice that seems to be the end result for the wider public when it comes down to the matter of who is right and who is wrong.

Eagleman's position is simply that of offering up the myriad potentialities in the universe to negate the above, and open up the "possibility space."

Possibilianism just represents what should be the open space of human conscious endeavour, not being entirely focused on what the general public take away from the present debate between the atheists and theists - of a purely antagonistic, dualistic battle.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
and Of course some possibilities, such as the possibility of a planet made of blue cheese are less likely scientifically likely than others, and "conspiracy theory-ism," is often based on the idea that the less evidence there is for an idea, the more on can ramble on about the idea incessantly, and the more controversial the book cover it can have, and thus the more copies it is likely to sell since the sensationalist tabloid press always outsells scientific journals.

Possibilianism would simply regard the above as cultural constructions almost certainly, points in the "possibility space," similar to when Eagleman discusses the religious and mythological narratives of god figures and aliens in the above mentioned presentation - these are more cultural artifacts that obscure the yawning landscape to be investigated and considered in between such ideas - via sifting through the data and postulating hypotheses.
As you mentioned of Dawkins, panspermia is one serious possibility, and has been posited by many scientists for some time.
The "little green men" archetype would seem to have little to do with any such possibility though and can be assigned as purely a sociocultural invention.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
The general Luciferian philosophy is actually very simple and can be explained in a few paragraphs, and is little more than humanism. We (human beings) have the potential to be living gods; self deification and progress occurs through the evolution of the human mind, human education and scientific progress; human intelligence and reason are considered higher authorities than "God;" and the triumph of human will over the "God's will" of the religious fanatics, which is essentially the will of the slave masters of the ancient world, is a Holy War, though it is only we human beings who are "Holy." Thus total rebellion against "God" is required.

Lucifer rebelling against God is of course a fictional and fabricated Christian myth lifted from the Greek myth of the heroic martyr Prometheus, who similarly rebelled against the gods, but never the less it is a useful archetype for all anti-Christians.

Well, you go your way, I shall go mine. Hopefully some interesting conversation will take place from time to time where out intellectual paths may intersect.

Regards and thanks for your reply.

.

Muslim group, Ansar al-Sunna, demand breakaway Islamic nation in Norway or another 9/11 threatened
  Posted 4 days ago with 41 member flags

New Testament Fairy Tales
  Posted 7 days ago with 25 member flags

Who Are The "Synagogue of Satan", The "Jews" Who Are Not Jews", Mentioned In Revelation?
  Posted 7 days ago with 24 member flags

A Brief Rant On Religion
  Posted 2 days ago with 24 member flags

The Star of David is not a Jewish symbol. The seal of Solomon is a tool of Jinn control.
  Posted 7 days ago with 23 member flags

Obama has declared himself the messiah?
  Posted 3 days ago with 13 member flags

Pastor who "kicked" Holy Spirit into woman banned from UK! Religious discrimination?
  Posted 18 days ago with 8 member flags

Catholic TV Star, the Rev. Benedict Groeschel, Defends Child Sex Abusers
  Posted 12 days ago with 8 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: