Sunday, July 08, 2012

Religion



Anonymous left the following comments on one of our posts (SATANISM) in response to a comment from 'an atheist':

1) "A religion is really just an unquestioning relationship with an imaginary figure with big power"

Umm, okay.

We've establish you as a typical atheist materialist then, blindly following the Dawkins dogma. Sorry for the mild ad hominem, but the nature of perceived reality can be far stranger than the superficial, facile and literal conceptions of atheists.

Moreover it is.

You even see a gradual shift in mainstream scientific thinking along these lines. Read Brian Greene's latest book, for example. There is a somewhat begrudged evolution in thought about physical and conscious reality and existence. Probably best characterized as a gradual shift towards monism, a unification of matter and mind.

Let me pose a simple question: What would the world be like if consciousness were, as it is, a synthesizable construct?

So, for example, if synthetic characters in fictional worlds were able to think, feel and perceive.

What would "real" and "exist" even mean? How would you infer your world were "not real"? Violations of causality? Violations of statistical plausibility? (premonition, precognition, bad coincidences)

Some time ago I googled the phrase "randomness tests as simulacrum tests", the first hit was the Wikipedia article on "Truth". A propos, I think.

Anyway, more concretely: let's say hot coffee suddenly froze or your hand quantum-tunneled through a table, how would you interpret such occurrences? They are physically possible, sure, just astronomically improbable. Are you going to think "how lucky" or "is this real"? Which is more plausible?

Atheists tend to think of believers as credulous, needing a placebo to assuage their fear of death. But eternal life is a far more frightening prospect than death, if it's spent somewhere unpleasant. Even more frighteningly, we can see on the horizon the engineering means of "implementing" immortality. Assuming this didn't already happen aeons ago. Which it almost certainly did.

Anyway, you can understand the atheist mindset. The egregious contempt much of organized religion has for truth, not to mention humanity, does nothing to endear it to the scientific mind.

Nonetheless, the scientific method is not a be-all-end-all. It is merely an epistemic tool we use to discover truth, or regularities in nature.

Science says nothing about purpose.

Why are we here? How should we live our lives in this world, by what rules? What is the hidden reality behind the veil of our perceived world?

This is the purpose of rational religion.

Religions mostly come to the same conclusions. The meaning of our lives is to understand and foster sentience. To maintain good, ordered community, friendship, love.

This is an information-theoretic evolutionary imperative even.

Hate promotes the destruction of sentience, a path to meaningless desolation.

Love promotes the continuation of sentience, and ever-growing flowering of sentient complexity.

What gives your world meaning?

Love.

---
"Nothing more. Nothing less. Love is the best."
Anonymous said...

2) Your mention of dreams there is interesting. You mean of course lucid dreams, in which the dreamer influences the world of the dream. (Tangentially, in all three major monotheistic religions, it is recorded in various places that in the Final Days, the wishes of the righteous will tend increasingly to come true. That is, in a sense the world increasingly becomes like a lucid dream, shaped and influenced by the best of people.)

3) "We are children lost in a big scary world. Not many have the inner strength to stand on their own."

That's true, we are children lost in a big scary world. However it is an arrogance to assume you can stand entirely on your own. A man who invents his own moral code will soon be lost, gradually corrupted by selfishness and expediency.

4) "This is a contradiction."

Nope, it was just not phrased well. Let me try again:

"They worship a narcissistic entity that was imbued with the desire to destroy mankind spiritually. Its sole raison d'ĂȘtre"

That is, it was created as a stress test. To endeavor to, but not succeed in, the spiritual destruction of mankind.

5) "You can test people by giving them an option to do good."

Yes, that's the whole point. Throughout our lives we are presented with decisions. We can either choose what is right, despite the consequences being personally painful; or what is wrong, even though this is often the simple and comfortable path.

6) I know very little of Jung's religious affiliations, but they appear to be somewhat dubious and New Age, rather than traditionally Christian, for instance. But I see no evidence he was devoted to evil, the opposite if anything.

No matter; it does not detract from his worthwhile contributions. In particular, his reification of the concepts of synchronicity and cultural archetypes. His investigations into the strange and improbable of human experience were astute. He also ignored the standard worldview and trusted his own observations and inferences; something few have the courage to do, particularly when the standard worldview gave no explanation for how such phenomena are possible, in fact even contradicted the possibility. To do so, he really of necessity had to be part shaman and part scientist. And he is still often rejected as a pure witch doctor.

7) "Nothing scary really. Except for weak and suggestible people."

But this I mean that persons with a strong moral compass and the strength of their convictions are much less susceptible, even to subtle and subconscious influence.

Not that doing the right thing is always simple. It rarely is. Fairness and justice are often matters of complex calculation, far beyond human capability. We can only do our best with the faculties we're endowed with.
Read the Wikipedia article on "Fairness"; you'll see how primitive the state of our knowledge is in such areas. And look at the kleptocracies and tyrannies we live in to see how little our societies reflect the highest aspirations of decent humanity.

But slowly, arduously, we are making our way to a better world.

---
"Yes, why do we have to have evil?"
"Ah, I think it's something to do with free will."
~~~

9 COMMENTS:

Anon said...
"I had to defend myself because my parents wouldn’t get out of bed to defend me. They had other people caring for me since they were too wrapped up in their own problems and fought constantly. This mentality—along with our dysfunctional relationships and my father’s violence, fear, and paranoia—were the forces behind his teachings."

"In the 80s, Christian fundamentalists started using the church as their scapegoat, the group they could point a finger at as being responsible for these secret cattle mutilations, child abductions, and crazy government-related conspiracy theories they were hearing about in the news. I panicked, feeling as though they were attacking my religion and my father, so I contacted him and asked what his plans were to address the situation. I learned that he had no plans because he no longer had anyone to help him, and there really wasn’t a Church of Satan anymore. All of the members from the 60s and 70s no longer participated; they were just names on a mailing list. I decided I’d act as its temporary spokeswoman in order to show everyone that we really did exist. Somehow one year turned into five, and my fighting actually ended up helping to form new memberships within the church again.

My father, who was too sickly and frightened to ever do his own PR, was happy to have me handle things, but he and the remaining members of the church provided no realistic support when I needed it. He lived in a dream world where absolutely nothing to do with social issues was of any importance. We were the targets of a nationwide witch hunt, and all he wanted was for me to talk about Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield."

"Like most cults that are based on protecting the founder’s image, they do their best to attack anyone who says anything negative about their views or reveals the truth about them."

"Michael Aquino, who was formerly part of the CoS, since I assumed he’d had a similar religious experience with the real entity of Seth before starting the group. It wasn’t until I became more involved that I realized it was an Anton LaVey fan club. Aquino didn’t know anything about comparative religions, couldn’t argue theology or Egyptian cosmology… I kept thinking, “Maybe he’s being coy; we’ll eventually get to know his secrets,” and that never happened. It was my father’s legacy, another abusive and corruptive group"

Beelzebub's Daughter
How Zeena Schreck Escaped the Church of Satan
http://www.vice.com/read/beelzebubs-daughter-0000175-v19n4?Contentpage=-1
Anon said...
Anton LaVey's daughter Zeena left her father's Church of Satan (CoS), joined Michael Aquino's Temple of Set (ToS), then founded her Sethian Liberation Movement (SLM) to teach mistreated lost people resolve their problems with tantric black magic, meditation and self-hypnosis.
She is pictured getting sex from a serpent and styled as aristocratic high class whore in bad mood standing in a black coat showing something like a huge erection.

Satanism is a NWO-promoted (Royal Navy, Cabala, New Age, Freemasonry) movement like an empty shell. The Devil, Lucifer, Seth, these Gods of darkness and blinding light-shows ("enlightenment"), deception, torture, death and destruction, are exchangeable father-figures used to impress and mislead the weak followers like sheep. They are being enabled by religious upbringing teaching lies about invented invisible magic Gods and by widespread emotional neglect during childhood, leaving people in permanent search of all-powerful parent-figures. Practitioners feel powerful when they destroy, too stupid to realise that destruction is easy.
See Oppenheimer, "father of the atomic bomb", after detonating a nuke, citing the Bhagavad Gita: "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

Satanism is also being used as an underworld cover for prostitution and pedophiles torturing children, a practice used by the ruling mafia to bind their employees, priests, bankers, "leaders", "rulers" and heads of states. It's often easier to give orders when the recipients are persuaded they come from an all-powerful higher authority. The old trick to launch myths, "holy" books, temples and priesthoods to manipulate and brainwash people and form nations and empires. If it's "for the greater good" you can make people sacrifice themselves and their own children and kill others (satanic ritual sacrifice SRA, murders, wars).

LaVey "had followers who took things very seriously and genuinely believed in this entity Satan and not so much in Anton LaVey’s idea of Satanism. As it turns out, he wasn’t very knowledgeable on the subject and, in essence, created a postmodern version of Satanism as he went along. It was a manifestation of his ego.

He was very confused, and as a result, so are the inheritors of the church. He’s been accused of being a con man—which is accurate—but he wasn’t a very efficient one. He was lazy and never planned for the future or looked after his family because that is the nature of LaVeyan Satanism: Get what you can, live only in the here and now, care only about yourself, and get other people to care for you. It’s like you’re one big infant."
Newspaceman said...
Hiya, this seems related :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-18727098

cheers
P2P said...
"Jones thoughtlessly assigns "occult" motivations to the scientific overclass, who have been increasingly Maoist in their drive to annihilate any thought contagion outside of their rationalist/reductionalist orthodoxy, and have been using fronts like CSICOP (with its links to the international pedophile underground) and the JREF (whose co-founder was recently convicted of fraud in Federal court) to stamp out any traces of occultism since the early 70s."

http://secretsun.blogspot.fi/2012/07/alex-jones-prometheus-and-death-of-sci.html

m. aquino as indiana jones:

https://xeper.org/maquino/

"MindWar.

“From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory”. Co-authored with Colonel Paul Vallely, this [in]famous “thinking paper” examines U.S. Psychological Operations (PSYOP) doctrine as of 1980 and proposes evolutionary and effective changes. Contains a 2003 Introduction discussing the paper in its original - and appropriate - context."
Anonymous said...
These satanist cults appear to have nothing to do with any sort of religious belief, however sick and twisted. Unlike, for example, the Thaggi cults of India in the eighteen hundreds, which the British Raj put much effort into stamping out. The adherents of those cults deceived and murdered as a form of religious ritual and devotion, strange as that may seem.

No, these postmodern satanists appear to be some very evil, sick and defective puppies who use this "religion" as a cover for their perversions and experiments even. Just some disgusting criminals best dealt with by the police. Unfortunately, the police can't protect your soul.

How these people got that way in the first place is anyone's guess. But they're consigned for destruction. You really wouldn't want such repellent entities in a pleasant world, not unless you can burn away all that evil.

---
"You invited me. It is not my custom to go where I'm not wanted."
"Who are you?"
---

After all, this "religion" is fundamentally irrational. They worship a narcissistic entity the sole purpose of whose creation is the destruction of mankind. But created with rational intent: what better way of testing and sorting out human souls than constant, unseen and pervasive entrapment?

Of course, nowadays it's just some sort of comical cartoon figure. Which makes its work even easier.

---
The great satan hisself is red and scaly with a bifurcated tail. He carries a hay fork."
---

Eventually, however this thing will have served its purpose, as will have this world, and neither will any longer be required.

Anyway, you can just imagine it exists as Jungian archetype: Enemy of Man. Nothing scary really. Except for weak and suggestible people.

An archetype that each of us could meet face to face without even knowing it.

---
"What? What'd I just say? No, this isn't right. This can't be right. Get away from me!"
---
Satanism Infants said...
Thanks for reposting, Aangirfan.

Moviequoter, you write: "These satanist cults appear to have nothing to do with any sort of religious belief, however sick and twisted."
There are bookstores filled with their religious literature.
There are children lost between abuse and neglect finding an imaginary strong father figure to worship and trust, like this girl:
http://www.in-satans-honour.com/howibecameasatanist.htm
A religion is really just an unquestioning relationship with an imaginary figure with big power (re-ligio binding link back). We are children lost in a big scary world. Not many have the inner strength to stand on their own.

"You really wouldn't want such repellent entities in a pleasant world, not unless you can burn away all that evil."
In dreams, you can't get rid of animated menacing dangers (evil) by destroying them, because they can resurrect. You need to allow them to transform, or you strengthen yourself to feel safe. Same in the real world. Burning away evil in persons you perpetuate evil (mortal danger) towards them.

"this "religion" is fundamentally irrational. They worship a narcissistic entity the sole purpose of whose creation is the destruction of mankind. But created with rational intent"
This is a contradiction.

"what better way of testing and sorting out human souls than constant, unseen and pervasive entrapment?"
You can test people by giving them an option to do good.
Your question reflects medieval catholic torture test mentality.

"Eventually, however this thing will have served its purpose, as will have this world, and neither will any longer be required."
Required ?
By whom, for whom, how do you know ?

"Anyway, you can just imagine it exists as Jungian archetype: Enemy of Man."
CG Jung was closely associated with Satanism.
http://www.exposingsatanism.org/satanism_the_lucifer_trust.htm
http://www.exposingsatanism.org/satanism_the_lucifer_trust2.htm

A fact he tried to cover up for years.
"There was also a figure whom Jung called Philemon, who became a kind of ‘inner guru’ and who he painted as a bald, white-bearded old man with bull’s horns and the wings of a kingfisher."
http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/3847/the_occult_world_of_cg_jung.html

"Nothing scary really. Except for weak and suggestible people."
Isn't it scary to have a child abducted and used for torture ?
Or a bankster ordering war to fulfill his visions using luciferian networks ?

"An archetype that each of us could meet face to face without even knowing it."
Do you mean a sadist, for example ?

5 comments:

Satanism Infants said...

C.G. Jung's sexual relationship, while married, with a 19 year old patient in trouble is a clear indication that he chose his personal desires over the well-being of his patients.

In his 40s Jung "kept a loaded pistol next to his bed and vowed to blow his brains out if he ever felt he had entirely lost his sanity".

CG Jung "blamed Christianity, a “foreign growth,” for felling the gods of the Germans, and as a result “the Germanic man is still suffering from this mutilation. We must dig down to the primitive in us, for only out of the conflict between civilized man and the Germanic barbarian will there come what we need: a new experience of God” trapped within everyone, waiting to be released."
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=11-04-052-b

"Jung's own promiscuity and conversion to the polygamous ideas of Otto Gross coincided with the break with Freud. The polygamous practices of Jung's disciples (in Jungian parlance `constellating the anima') have remained a hidden aspect of his thinking."

"Freud, in a letter to a colleague, referred to "unruly homosexual feelings transferred from another part"--the part in question being a previous collaborator, Wilhelm Fliess. Jung recognized the same in himself. Because of early sexual trauma at the hands of an older, trusted male figure, Jung found intimacy with other males repulsive. He came to feel towards Freud a "religious crush." Yet gradually the attraction disgusted him, betraying its baser origins, and so Jung had to move away. He was filled with paranoia--displaced homosexual feelings--and that made any subsequent collaboration impossible. Again, this was nothing new for Jung. As many were to observe, he always had trouble sustaining close male friendships."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/genius-and-madness/200905/why-freud-and-jung-broke

Satanism Infants said...

"As we know from our own experiences with romantic love, intimacy exposes our deepest wounds. That Freud and Jung were not immune to this truth of human personality, can be shown by a close attention to the role of eros in their association. After the breakup they both plunged deeply into desolation. Jung understood his experience as a kind of nekyia, the sun god's perilous undersea journey that skirts madness and destruction every night."

"This is what it feels like to have lost one's soul. For Jung to have let go his hold on Freud was to have opened himself to more than abandonment and repudiation. It was not just an "other" that he lost, but the very sense of being capable of joining. [...]
Weeks of diversion playing at "Englishmen and Indians" only disguised his desolation. Tunnels of communication ended in incendiary aggression, as tepees and command posts were reduced to ash. Proof the diversion had failed appeared in his repeated image of Europe under a sea of blood, Jung isolated and vomiting from his vantage on a rocky ledge in the Swiss alps."

"About ten years later he wrote that, [...] we have to relinquish our hope to have our fragmentation and anguish contained by a partner. He recommends tolerating our "self-division for the time being," and even allowing ourselves a "more complete disintegration." It would be futile to boldly assert a self-unity we do not feel or to compensate its absence by seeking one partner after another to contain our multiplicity. Such tactics only deny the earthquakes that shiver the soul along fault lines that run all the way down to a liquid core."

"Although Jung returned from his rift valley, he carried his wound with him. At the end of his autobiography, he speaks of his loneliness and "sensitivity to companionship" because he knows things that others do not want to know (Jung, 1961: 356). Furthermore, it appears that he did not hide his loneliness from the people around him. For example, Jane Wheelwright, an American student of Jung's who came to know him long after his brush with psychosis, describes an insistent passion in him that seduced everyone, leaving the women fighting one another to get close to him and the men grumbling over "imagined neglect""
http://www.jrhaule.net/harvest.html

Satanism Infants said...

"We've establish you as a typical atheist materialist then, blindly following the Dawkins dogma. Sorry for the mild ad hominem, but the nature of perceived reality can be far stranger than the superficial, facile and literal conceptions of atheists."
Possible.
I'm neither atheist nor materialist and Dawkins is just another well paid misled misleader like the erstwhile high class ... Ayn Rand.

"let's say hot coffee suddenly froze or your hand quantum-tunneled through a table, how would you interpret such occurrences?"
I would wonder how the "quantum-tunneled" came into my mind.

"Why are we here?"
I don't know.

"How should we live our lives in this world, by what rules?"
Do you want religions to answer this question ?
Or do you prefer an open and transparent debate about ethics ?

"What is the hidden reality behind the veil of our perceived world?"
That is the subject of much research done by people like Aangirfan.

"This is the purpose of rational religion."
What is rational religion ?
Do you know something about its history ?
Common understanding is that in religion you believe, in rational thinking you enquire. This currently shapes the landscape of humans who prefer to cling to TV news, leaders, religions, cults, professors and other sources providing answers and those who follow questions about the ruling conspiracy.

"That is, in a sense the world increasingly becomes like a lucid dream, shaped and influenced by the best of people."
Are you currently observing this ?

""They worship a narcissistic entity that was imbued with the desire to destroy mankind spiritually. Its sole raison d'ĂȘtre"
That is, it was created as a stress test. To endeavor to, but not succeed in, the spiritual destruction of mankind."
How do you know it was created with this intention ?

Anonymous said...

Hi again,

Thanks for the background on Jung. Although there's some objective fact in there, mostly it seems to be subjective impression on behalf of the source. Jung's flaws, even serious flaws, as a human being in no way detract from his contributions, which must be judged on their own merits.

"I'm neither atheist nor materialist..."

Sorry to misrepresent you.

"Or do you prefer an open and transparent debate about ethics?"

With apparently objective open and transparent debate about ethics, you end up with the sort of repellent conclusions you hear from the likes of Peter Singer. With sufficient sophistry, you can convince yourself of almost anything, no matter how depraved or evil.

Ask yourself: would you rather live in a world governed by the ephemeral intellectual whims of a Peter Singer, or a world governed largely by the mores of the monotheistic religions?

Not that I'm saying debate is futile. On the contrary, it's vital. But you have to have a some sort of moral anchor.

"Common understanding is that in religion you believe, in rational thinking you enquire."

By "rational thinking", I assume you mean science. If so, my point absolutely stands.

You seem to imply belief is somehow inferior, superfluous maybe, pernicious even. But belief is fundamental: we all need beliefs. Even trust in the scientific method is a belief.

Science is merely an epistemic tool that permits us to infer predictive patterns and regularities in an observed world. That's it.

Science tells us nothing about how we should conduct ourselves. Whether it is better to live or to die. To preserve life and sentience or destroy them. To do good or evil. To prefer peace or pain. To strive for nobility or degradation. Altruism or selfishness. Love or hate.

These remain articles of faith.

Obviously, there are consequences depending on which you choose. But no science or mathematics will tell you which to prefer.

Our belief in good over evil appears to be something deep within the very core of our being.

Maybe something primordial even in nature.

Like I said, an information-theoretic evolutionary imperative. A sort of anthropic principle: selection favouring greater sentience.

So much evil has been inflicted on humanity precisely because of soulless science, blind to belief: genocide, eugenics, social darwinism, the hydrogen bomb, biological warfare, sophisticated propaganda, neoliberal economic "rationalism", deification of the state, tyrannical plutocracy. And other such ideas whose "merit" is "obvious".

By whatever name, we need something beyond science, let's call it religion, to tell us:

Choose life.

---
"It's circular: you exist to continue your existence. What's the point?"

Satanism Infants said...

"With apparently objective open and transparent debate about ethics, you end up with the sort of repellent conclusions you hear from the likes of Peter Singer."
Singer is an NWO-freak.
Why jump to such conclusions ?

"With sufficient sophistry, you can convince yourself of almost anything, no matter how depraved or evil."
Same with religion.
You take distorted extremes to invalidate whole fields of study.

"Ask yourself: would you rather live in a world governed by the ephemeral intellectual whims of a Peter Singer, or a world governed largely by the mores of the monotheistic religions?"
Singer or Pope, are these the alternatives of your field of view ?

"Not that I'm saying debate is futile. On the contrary, it's vital. But you have to have a some sort of moral anchor."
Sure. Non-fanatics usually agree to "do unto others as you would like them to do unto you."

"Common understanding is that in religion you believe, in rational thinking you enquire."

"By "rational thinking", I assume you mean science."
Established science is largely corrupt, not rational.

"You seem to imply belief is somehow inferior, superfluous maybe, pernicious even. But belief is fundamental: we all need beliefs. Even trust in the scientific method is a belief."
Yes. Corrupt science is usually dogmatic like religion.
And yes both, due to their refusal to enquire and accept reality, lead astray.

"Science is merely an epistemic tool that permits us to infer predictive patterns and regularities in an observed world. That's it."
Well that's precious.
This means you can increase the chances to get healthy food and thrive, for example.

"Science tells us nothing about how we should conduct ourselves. Whether it is better to live or to die. To preserve life and sentience or destroy them. To do good or evil. To prefer peace or pain. To strive for nobility or degradation. Altruism or selfishness. Love or hate."
Ethics is all about these questions.
Science defined as you did above in complicated terms tells us a lot about how we should conduct ourselves to get desired outcomes.

"These remain articles of faith."
There is religious ethics too, but it's not the only one.

"Our belief in good over evil appears to be something deep within the very core of our being.
Maybe something primordial even in nature."
Yes, it sits in our reptilian brain.

"Like I said, an information-theoretic evolutionary imperative. A sort of anthropic principle: selection favouring greater sentience."
What ?

"So much evil has been inflicted on humanity precisely because of soulless science, blind to belief: genocide, eugenics, social darwinism, the hydrogen bomb, biological warfare, sophisticated propaganda, neoliberal economic "rationalism", deification of the state, tyrannical plutocracy. And other such ideas whose "merit" is "obvious"."
Yes. Corrupt science guided by dogmatic beliefs and hidden agendas excluding rational questioning.

"By whatever name, we need something beyond science, let's call it religion, to tell us:
Choose life."
You are jumping to conclusions.


---
"Epistemic is always a great word to know.
So is flibbertigibbet."

 
Site Meter