Monday, April 04, 2005

some old posts on religion etc.

I'm going to paste some old chatter I made about religion and such about a year ago. I just woke up and don't feel like getting into it at 7am with no breakfast. :) this should be fine as a conversation starter if anyone actually reads it and thinks about it I think.


Saturday, July 31st, 2004
8:55 pm
some other thoughts.
it's actually pretty interesting how much simpler and clear your view of the world becomes when you can start to understand where the line between fantasy and reality is drawn.

for instance, some of the things that I found really interesting in the past were things like discovering that most REAL satanists don't believe in satan at all. and for the record, his name is not satan, it's lucifer. satan is a rank of demon. it's simply pathetic to see "satan" illustrated and referred to constantly as some half goat with horns and a forked tail, etc etc...

now remember kiddies, we're just discussing FICTION HERE, so don't get too caught up in these details like some poor sap we know does.. ;) haha

lucifer was the greatest and most beautiful of all the angels and simply chose not to be subservient to god anymore. for standing up for himself, god cast him out of heaven and all those that chose to follow him. now I don't see where he got transformed into a half goat in there... nor do I see where choosing not to be someones servant is a bad thing etc. to put it simply of course.

but aside from the obvious joke of christian stupidity there.... the point I'm making here is that satanists simply use the concept of satan as a sort of mascot. a fictional manifestation of the principles they associate with. satan stands for rebellion, for free will etc. now mind you I personally don't care a lot for satanists for other reasons, but in general they have a fundamentally better grasp on reality than christians (or many other religions, just so nobody feels left out).

as a perfect example of satanism promoting skepticism, Anton Szandor LaVey himself (whose real name was Howard Stanton Levey), who embellished large parts of his own past for instance (to put it VERY mildly), often stated to trust nothing, not even him. which makes it humorous when people throw fits about him lying about his past... the whole thing becomes hilarious to those who saw the big picture enough to realize that if you fell for the lies, then you were missing his main point to begin with. take it as a lesson and grow from it.

(not that I'm a fan of the guy, but he made and illustrated through his own life the absurd joke of religion and made a huge name for himself by exploiting the ignorance of the masses and their need for structure and direction etc in their lives. he was essentially a plagiarist, compulsive liar and hypocrite, but it's not like he didn't warn you about it up front. if you fell for it, you had only yourself to blame.)

there is nothing wrong with studying the world around you, that is what you should do (if you want to gain knowledge and wisdom etc)... but without the ability to separate fact from fiction... skepticism etc... all that knowledge becomes rather useless except to try to impress other ignorant people in the same poor boat as yourself.
just another pathetic sheep.

so as a little mental exercise for you... here's a quote:
"the death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions is just a statistic." - Josef Stalin.

think about that one the next time you see some murdered girl on TV and the massive media hype to make a huge deal out of it and people across the country weeping at the death of a complete stranger. and then hearing about "68 killed in car bomb in baghdad today" and nobody bats an eyelash.

learn to see the world for what it is, to see through media hype, the spin on stories, things like that. once you really start to realize a lot of things for the fiction that they are, or the very one sided spins on stories, etc... you start to see the world differently and gain a kind of instinct, a sort of "spider sense" that tingles when you're exposed to bullshit.

which is probably why I get so frustrated with the asshat I was bickering with on my friends behalf... because he could somewhat get things right, but miserably failed in other aspects. and simply couldn't detach himself from his book dependant way of thinking.

I'd like to hear him admit that the whole concept of original sin is a crock of fictional shit. 100%. that christianity (which is just plagiarised judaism with a bunch of complete fiction written mostly over a century, if not two or three hundred years later tacked onto it) is at it's core just another work of fiction, plagiarised in large part from earlier works of fiction, and that he is a moron to believe as fact ANY of the supernatural aspects of it. I think one thing that suckers in a lot of weak minded people is the fact that it's basically historical fiction. and having actual historical events in the bible, really makes it hard for weak minded people to separate fact from fiction. not that most modern day fiction doesn't employ the same tool in making it's stories believable... hell, the best lies are part true. the real reward is learning to stop and think about things and separate the fact from fiction. to separate reality from fantasy.

if I walked up to you today and said that I just saw a guy walking on water, or told you that I had a friend whose mother spontaneously conceived him without ever having sex (or obviously undergoing fertility treatment etc), or that I knew a guy that got violently murdered, was buried and then 3 days later was all fine and healed and walking around again.... what would your reaction be? I'd wager to bet it would be along the lines of "BULLSHIT!!!"

so tell me, why is it that the things you know better than to believe as anything other than utterly ridiculous based on your own experience, as well as a modern knowledge of medicine, phsyics, biology etc... you whole-heartedly believe when it comes to ancient superstitious ignorance and fairytales contained in religion?

learning to recognize that switch, and remove it, is a great achievement indeed.

now hopefully you understand these basic concepts and ideas, which can lend a great insight into your daily life in a useful way that bickering who would win in a fight between Goku and Vegita cannot. ;)


8:11 pm
yee haw.
well, after a few days of pointless bickering with a pseudo-intellectual who can't seem to focus on a point outside of one illustrated in books he's read, I dropped the topic to focus on work etc.

as he seems to think of himself as the victor, I'll just let him think that. :)

a few points that I wanted to make on his last post, without actually replying to it and invoking another bout of "I won't answer your question, but I'll list more names of books and authors to avoid admitting that I'm a fucking idiot and can't think for myself."

first off, when I list several points on christianity and some fundamental logical flaws with it, and specifically ask him to respond to those and not just list more books... what does he do? list more books and unrelated points to the main issue I raised. AGAIN.

when we're dealing with the fundamental flaws in christianity as a whole, what the HELL do the differences between St.Paul and St.Augustines views on the nature of Original Sin have to do with it!? NOTHING! hahaha if ANYTHING, that half-wit should focus on Constantine and the very roots of modern christianity and it's historically documented MASSIVE pagan influences (to massively understate it) and corruption in the 300 years between when the gospels were first supposedly begun and when the council of Nicene canonized what we now know as the modern christian bible. we KNOW many points such as the gospels being re-written many times to fit political and personal aims in the CENTURIES that passed before the council, we know that there were at least 200 gospels which were recognized by the church as holy etc (of which all but 4 particular "interpretations" of the supposed gospels of matthew, mark, luke and john, were destroyed after the canonization in order to ensure constantines will and the longevity of HIS version of christianity.)... we know that there were DRASTIC differences between many of them, which contradicted each other etc... we know that Constantine as a practicing pagan used christianity to further his own political goals, and while moving under the guise of a christian himself, was never baptised as a christian until he lay on his death bed, and during his reign blended pagan beliefs and christian beliefs to suit his own will. moving a giant pagan phallus into the center of Constantinople and forcing the "christians" to worship it, as well as Apollo, which he also worked into his particular version of christianity. he moved the sabbath day from the traditional 7th day, saturday, to the pagan day of worship to the sun god, sunday. and following in his tradition, such things as all saints day, christmas etc were also moved to incorporate the pagan holidays and beliefs to attempt conversion of the heathens to christianity by both absorbing the previous holidays and also making it easier for pagans to make the transition. such things as the halo's above the heads of the holy and angels etc being adopted from the halos of feathers worn on the heads of the pagan worshippers, and the "holy trinity" being directly adopted from far older religions and ideas, being non-existant in christianity originally.

but anyway... the point I was trying to make is that while this fellow would be busy trying to argue which leaf on a tree was more important, he was simply ignoring the fact that I was standing at the base of the trunk with a chainsaw trying to get his attention.

the difference in interpretation between eastern and western views on original sin in early christianity are a moot fucking point when you realize that the entire religion is a fucking work of fiction. it's insanely humorous to read early christian works when you can step back and see it for the huge joke it is. I read some of the early works like that occasionally, but to me the historical aspects of the very foundations and precursors of christianity are more interesting to me that the wholly fictitious dogma that evolved long afterward.

to put it simply, this fellow in his infinite short-sightedness was so intent on arguing something as irrelevant as whom would win in a fight between Goku and Vegita on Dragonball Z, that he just couldn't see the obvious...

IT'S FICTION YOU DUMB FUCK. pull your head out of your fucking books and take a look at REALITY moron. hahaha

really... how the hell am I supposed to get through to people like that? it's just sad really. so caught up in his abstract philosophical fantasies that he can't let go of his book "smarts" long enough to realize that a lot of that shit is moot when you realize that it's FICTION. the simple fact that he claims to know so much about his religion, but still practices it, clearly illustrates the great weakness of the poor boys mind.

jesus was a jew. he was a radical cult leader and highly charismatic one at that. but he was by NO means unique in his day. many people both before and after him shared the legends of virginal birth, divinity, death and ressurection, healing the sick, crowds of witnesses to all these etc... but let's not miss the point that even judaism is also a work of fiction. as real as greek and roman mythology and their gods.

the real issue here is being able to use critical thinking, (un)common sense, rational and logical thought etc... to be able to see through all the superstitious and primitive trappings of religion and see reality for what it is. something this poor fellow seems pitifully unable to do having read too many books that have filled his head with ideas he can't seem to actually sort out between fantasy and reality.

like I said before... basically a smart guy, but sorely lacking where it counts.... and amounting in the end to nothing but a pretentious asshole too caught up in himself to realize it. :)
but hey.. he'll make a good lawyer. ;D hahaha

No comments: