The nine satanic sins/comparisons

Dr. S.

Employing Ockhams razor eliminates the erroneous, the unneeded complexities. Cut’s to the chase, so to speak

You have two problems in saying that Ockham’s razor is the basis of rational thought. One is that Ockham, for whom the razor is named, was a religious mystic, and employed it to mark out the limits of rationality. The second is that the “necessary”, explicit in the razor, is not assessable within rationality itself. Every theory of the world proposes a level of complexity that it deems necessary to explain phenomena. Your idea that “genetics” explains it all is of course ludicrous. Even from the absolute materialist perspective - which is not the only one -, the functioning of genes relies upon non-material laws, which are proposed to be unchanging. These “laws” are unexplained. It simply is a rhetorical over-reach to use Ockham’s razor in this way.

Dunamis

As that is entirely about the man and not the razor, it is not a problem whatsoever.

I am talking about the scientific employment of the razor, which relies on evidence and solid inductive methods.

Genetics explains it all? Where exactly did I say that?
I said it is more likely that genetics, a known and measurable component of life and its behaviors, is a more likely explaination for the religious need to believe than the existance of some fantastical boogeyman,of which there is no reasonable evidence .

those ‘laws’ are merely documented behaviors of life itself. Without humans to create them, the ‘laws’ wouldn’t exist, but the very physical processes we observed to create them from would continue as always.

Dr. S.,

As that is entirely about the man and not the razor, it is not a problem whatsoever.

The problem is that the “rational” explanation does not ground itself. Rationality has no rational grounds.

I am talking about the scientific employment of the razor, which relies on evidence and solid inductive methods.

Induction is not logically grounded. That you call it “solid” does not make it so. It’s depictions are just that, extensions of cultural conceptions (language game) that gave rise to them, what Nietzsche called “the most exact of humanizations”. It’s just man operating under one more paradigm of thought (Kuhn), which again will change.

I said it is more likely that genetics, a known and measurable component of life and its behaviors, is a more likely explaination for the religious need to believe than the existance of some fantastical boogeyman,of which there is no reasonable evidence .

Nothing explains genetics, in fact the rise of genetic material out of the non-genetic remains a mystery, as does the information required in its use. The concept even that specific genes are for particular things is an over simplification of how genetics seem to work. The great preponderance of genetics remains unknown. You simply are mistaken.

those ‘laws’ are merely documented behaviors of life itself. Without humans to create them, the ‘laws’ wouldn’t exist, but the very physical processes we observed to create them from would continue as always.

Well, your “rational”, “solid”, “inductive” science has no explanation for them, and also without logical grounding presumes them to be unchanging – an necessary presumption to make the whole description work – but still a presumption that lies outside of proof. You have no idea that the physical processes would continue in our absence. You actually take this as a matter of faith. In fact the entire presumption of coherency upon which rationality relies is a matter of faith and nothing more. You are just one more practitioner of faith.

“In the period in the development of Western culture during which the God who figures in that sort of religion was stricken, so to speak, with his mortal illness, the illness that was going to lead to the demise famously announced by Nietzsche, some European intellectuals found themselves conceiving the secular world, the putative object of everyday and scientific knowledge, in ways that paralleled that humanly immature conception of the divine. This is a secular analogue to a religion of abasement, and human maturity requires that we liberate ourselves from it as well as from its religious counterpart.”

• John McDowell

Dunamis

Dr S,

Isn’t any theory attempting to explain the questions I posed above just “a placeholder for the unknown”? If something is unexplained or unknown, any theory developed to explain it is just an attempt to “fill the gaps”, is it not?

Any absolute certainty placed in science is unfounded. The best science can do is attempt to explain or predict percieved physical events around us with a degree of certainty. There always remains uncertainty and therefore any absolute trust in it is an act of faith.

Not if there is evidence that leads to an actual conclusion. postulating ‘god did it’ as the answer to any question doesn’t actually answer said question, but only over complicates it by adding yet more questions(what is god, how did he ‘do it’, why did he ‘do it’, etc etc)

Science is not dogmatic. Science is a method of reducing complexity and predicting the natural world, which should be aplied to ‘everything’ that one want’s a non-fictional answer to.

Very interesting conversation. I’m glad I stopped over this site in the first time in nearly a year. I’ll chip in more later if I have time but right now …

What then are we left with, Dunamis? Only accepting the presence of the here and now, without even the smallest leaps of “faith” to understand what the here and now are?

Its amazing to me how often the essential difference between Christianity and the various earth religions including the secular versions of the ancient traditions such as Christendom.

For some reason there is this popular idea that a religious person should be stupid by definition. No matter how much evidence there is for the opposite, this misconception remains alive and well.

All these Satanic sins have one unifying conception: the importance of oneself defined by egotism. For Christianity for example, egotism is what is sacrificed for the sake of the reality that it masks. Stupidity, pretensiousness, herdism and the rest deny openness to reality so interfere with Christianity as well as Satanism. The point becomes how a person becoming inwardly free through the application of inner psychology and the Laws of resonance sometimes called magick, appreciates this freedom. This choice is described in the temptation of Jesus.

The question became: “Is it better to serve in Heaven or rule in Hell?”

Obviously Jesus was master of himself, a quality necessary to a degree for magick in order to harness energy. He could easily rule on earth and create a powerful ego in relation to his superiority. But his desire was to no longer be a creature of service to and in bondage of the earth and this desire made it possible for him to sacrifice his egotism, the body of the secular religions including Satanism. In this way knowledge including the celebrated “reason” becomes secondry to the experience of and participatin within human purpose that transcends personal egotism.

A person of some self development is eventually confronted with this choice of service to heaven or rulership in Hell. But self development before the possibility of choice presents itself requires inner freedom where stupidity is of no help.

Dr S,

But the big questions I proposed earlier, and their corresponding scientific attempts at explaining them, do not have any evidence either. Has anyone ever actually proved that extra dimensions exist? What about other universes? etc etc. You’ll find that explanations such as string theory are extremely complicated and still don’t answer the question as to why anything that we can perceive should exist at all. Don’t get me wrong, science is an excellent tool at explaining some perceived effects and has enormous applications as we all know. I even do research in a particular facet of physics. But it falls tragically short of answering the big questions that I posed above. If we use science to explain the laws of science, we are essentially creating a circular arguement. How can physics explain why the laws of phyiscs are the way that we observe them to be?

This is were God can be a viable explanation. I’m not talking about the obviously undefendable arguements such as “God caused it to rain today”, I’m talking about the larger questions that science doesn’t have a hope of explaining.

Non-fictional is a relative term. Again we run into the problem of using science as an absolute measure, when it cannot be so. The ether was considered to be non-fictional two centuries ago, and now we think otherwise. As for science not being dogmatic, take this defintion from dictionary.com:

Some may see the above and argue that science can also be dogmatic. Science is not certain, uncertainty always remains and therefore any steadfast trust in it is an act of faith or a belief.

Do you know how this energy is harnessed? What its beginnings are?

basta,

Only accepting the presence of the here and now, without even the smallest leaps of “faith” to understand what the here and now are?

We are left knowing that we have to create our “real” through leaps of faith, leaps of faith that must be acknowledged as such, that beliefs are justified only be other beliefs. The “truths” of science are just one more effective mythology, but being a mythology does not make them meaningless, but meaningful. But being a mythology, its meaning must be put along side other mythologies, and not presumed to be transcendentally true.

Dunamis

Science is more or less a religion now. Since most of the universe cannot be studied, most of the ideas about the universe are theory. Because they are theory and someone believes in them he has faith in these ideas, not fact. Most scientists only have faith.

So what would you choose nick , heaven or hell?

It all depends on how your looking at Heaven or Hell. Do you see Heaven and Hell in the biblical sense or are you seeing it as a Metaphorical sense. One mans hell is another mans Heaven and another mans Heaven is another mans Hell. Its all how your looking at the situation in regards to a biblical Hell/Heaven, or a Metaphorical Heaven/Hell as shown in a previous thread discussing Metaphorical heaven/hell.

I D

Years ago I would have chosen hell since reality had no appeal. Yet through my own experiences I’ve come to understand ideas that I could have never understood before. My strong egotism would never allow it. Two ideas come to mind now. The first is on “will” by Meister Eckhart and the second is on “Evil and reality” by Simone Weil. Take from them what you might but I am awed at the depth of some that have come before that truly understand what they say. I see how they coincide with the benefits of serving in heaven.

If you look into it you’ll see a striking resembelance (plagarism) to Ragnar Redbeard’s “Might is Right” which pre-dates the “Satanic Bible” by quite some time. LaVey was a great speaker and showman but was hardly creative. His lack of originality is a hinderance to all debates related to satanism.

i thought there were only 7 sins???

as is above so is the below
10 commandments
10 insults,anti-commandments,freedom rules,etc (whatever floats your boat)
so confused

There are 7 deadly vices(sins).Of course there is an inumerable amount of sins-veniel or capital.I hope this clarifies the confusion.

What you confused about? What is it you want to find out?

i was confused about the diffrent words that just can’t be summed up into one i mean so it’s religion doesn’t always need a glossary does it?

Not sure I follow you, what spiritual tradition are you talking about ?