2 of 4
2
Hail and hello, a brief introduction…
Posted: 14 August 2007 02:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  66
Joined  2007-08-11

MULTIPLE POSTS RESPONDED TO IN THE FOLLOWING:

truthaddict - 14 August 2007 10:20 AM

I would look at the Lorenz quote in his profile first. Your concept of self-interest is not anything I have a dispute with (I personally have adopted Libertarian Socialism/Anarchism; so Im no stranger to the concept of self-interest), but I think its clear that these guys are refering to selfishness and not some sense of altruistic self-interest.

I’m glad you feel you know me so well that you can respond for me.

Since the question was specifically asked of ME, you could have been polite enough to wait for my answer instead of butting in so SELFISHLY!

[quote author=“darcy.cowen”]Ultimately is is in my best interests to abide by the public norms, be law abiding and to treat those around me (who deserve it) with respect and kindness. Anyone who denies this has only the short term view of personal self-interest. Were I to act contrary to this I would bring down upon myself repercussions that would reduce pleasure in my life. As such, it was discussed in the podcast that Satanists usually keep their position in the church to them selves and the church in turn keeps membership confidential.

This is a very nice encapsulation of how I feel, contrary to what “truthaddict” may think. In fact, “truthaddict” seems addicted to resolving that the world fits into the “truth” only as he/she sees it.

I can abide by the laws, and most likely I will not end up in prison (though it happens), if I’m kind to friends, they will most likely be kind in turn. If I find out one of them has crossed me, I will do my best to exact revenge upon them.

[quote author=“truthaddict”]These so-called “conservative secularists”/Satanists are (intentionally?) misinterpreting reality to fit some perverse agenda of selfishness, not an enlightened sense of self-interest.

Now now, I said I called myself a conservative secularist, that doesn’t mean other Satanists would. I would recommend that Darcy check out the thread on in the Episodes forum and read the “truthaddict” posts there to get an idea of how warped “truthaddict’s” views are.

[quote author=“mriana”]Very interesting, but I’m not going to jump off the Humanist ship.  smile

If it works for you, and doesn’t deprive me or mine, all is good as far as I’m concerned!

 Signature 

“Our world was brutal, immoral, smug and conventional. We had unbounded contempt for all those who did not sin as we sinned.” Jim Tully Circus Parade

“Books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul whose progeny they are; nay they do preserve as in a vial the purest efficacy and extraction of that living intellect that bred them.” - John Milton Aeropagitca

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2007 02:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

Kevin, i didnt answer for you. and is the polite rule in some Satanist handbook? sorry, must have missed it.

warped views? yes, Darcy, please see how “warped” they are.

The Anarchists, Socialists, Communists, workers, labor organizers and common folk who have fought and died for the rights and freedoms we enjoy are all “warped.” Having an eight-hour work day is warped. Doing away with slavery is warped. Broadening the role of the public in the management of their affairs is warped. Why cant we just be primitivists exploiting each other under the banner of justice and liberty? I think your entire concept of warped is warped…

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2007 03:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  66
Joined  2007-08-11
truthaddict - 14 August 2007 02:12 PM

Kevin, i didnt answer for you. and is the polite rule in some Satanist handbook? sorry, must have missed it.

So you are now playing by my rules? Are you taking on the social darwinist approach to this message board? Why would you look to my “rulebook” for guidance, shouldn’t you be following your own?

But I imagine you are, and your guidebook allows you to be unnecessarily rude, your guidebook also allows you to tell other people they can’t be, that they must be polite and co-operative, while you can be a rude twit to try to argue for compassion and altruism.

Let’s get the timeline straight

1. Someone asked a question to me.
2. You answered saying “obviously he thinks this and that”
3. Oh… wait, that’s the timeline, you answered “for me”

 Signature 

“Our world was brutal, immoral, smug and conventional. We had unbounded contempt for all those who did not sin as we sinned.” Jim Tully Circus Parade

“Books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul whose progeny they are; nay they do preserve as in a vial the purest efficacy and extraction of that living intellect that bred them.” - John Milton Aeropagitca

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2007 03:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

kevin,

no, I wasnt playing by your rules. i was just wondering if it was in yours. i didnt realize it was rude to express my views before you responded. is this some official debate with rules? also, i never said I was answering for you and I doubt anyone took it that way. why are you making such a fuss about such an irrelevant and petty issue?

in case your interested, my rule:

I speak for myself whenever I want.

if you dont like it then: “tough titty,” said the kitty, “but the milk’s still good.”

ps: if I was playing by your book I would “destroy” you for simply “annoying” me. Isnt that one of your rules?  LOL

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2007 03:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  66
Joined  2007-08-11
truthaddict - 14 August 2007 03:08 PM

i didnt realize it was rude to express my views before you responded. is this some official debate with rules? also, i never said I was answering for you and I doubt anyone took it that way.

You didn’t realize it was rude to answer someone’s direct question to someone else before they had a chance to? You doubt anyone took it that way? You do assume a lot about how other people - complete strangers think and feel - this is a terrible solipsism.

Maybe I was raised differently than you were, and it was probably solipsistic of me to think you may understand that this is just being polite. That would clearly be a mistake on my part, and I understand that you share many social values as other communists and anarchists, you are rude and an unrelenting bore. hopefully you at least keep decently hygenic, though I have the advantage of distance, unlike any poor sap who may feel your wrath in a personal interaction.

It profits me none to debate you, again, because you are a zealot and as we now have established, quite rude.

 Signature 

“Our world was brutal, immoral, smug and conventional. We had unbounded contempt for all those who did not sin as we sinned.” Jim Tully Circus Parade

“Books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul whose progeny they are; nay they do preserve as in a vial the purest efficacy and extraction of that living intellect that bred them.” - John Milton Aeropagitca

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2007 03:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4080
Joined  2006-11-28

Ok guys, this is drifting from a discussion of opposing ethical systems and political perspectives into a spitting match. Let’s all refrain from name-calling, excess sarcasm, and generally petty remarks directed at each other instead of involving the topic.
Thanks.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2007 03:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

the Satanist has been offended by an Anarchist who responded (not “answered”) to someone elses question to him. where are my manners??!!

so rather than deal with the criticism, youre focusing on the methods of the criticizer.

gotcha. im glad i offended you.

“if youre not offending those who ought to be offended then youre doing something wrong.” - noam chomsky (fellow anarchist)

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2007 03:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

LOL

ok, brennen. my apologies

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2007 03:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2007-08-13

Thanks Kevin for your reply, I was hoping I wasn’t too much off the mark. It’s how I view most situations.

I Did read the other tread, first actually I only really found this one by accident. I cannot say I agreed much with what was posted there by a number of respondents, including (I’m sorry to have to say) Truthaddict’s. 

While Truthaddict’s response to my question to you was obviously not meant to be rude and as I did start it with a quote from him(?)  I can cut him some slack I did initially skip over it to find yours.

I’ve said my peace and had some of my thoughts clarified.

Good luck Kevin, it seems that even here you have a bit of an up hill battle.

Darcy

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2007 03:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

im a him and thanks for the slack.

kevin, im done arguing, too. good luck with your Satanism.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 August 2007 11:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  245
Joined  2007-07-27

LOL This new member seems as confused as a Xian because atheist means not only not believing in a God, but any god or so-called-supernatural-invisible-being-power-force. I read and re-read the posts here and since my computer will not let me either see or listen to anything one can’t read with their eyes I have to reply on these posts and I have to go along with Doug (who by the way comes closes to any god I know of) and be just as confused and perplexed as he is on this subject.

But then according to the new member it sounds like some sort of catch all joke or riddle sort of like a Catch-22 joke.
Either that or some one has a few loose screws needing tightening. In all of my years of college I never once once heard of a more perplexed explanation to try and convince some one of something that made no sense to begin with. And the word theist is not only the belief of “God” by any gods or supernatural being either visible or invisible and atheist is not believing that any such being or object exist regardless rather it is “God”, Satan, Zeus, Thor, Ra, Aradia or what ever. Atheist in a nutshell is a non-believer of any unseen supernatural force rather than force dwells within an object or unseen and invisible. (Satan being an invisible being straight out of the Christian Bible invented by those so-called-prophets-inspired-of-God.)

My only conclusion here is some body is pulling some one’s leg and having lots of fun doing it as a wonderful funny hoax and since I too did pretty much the same thing back in 1977 inventing Hitteonism I can well see through this curtain of deception at the expanse of the unknowing and the unsuspecting such as we are, yet I see Doug is not buying it but is acting coy and aloof on the matter because of his committed position he has no choice on the matter as he invented the rules and therefore he more than anyone has to keep them and not break them. While we on the other hand as it is also have to keep the rules yet should and must give our own honest opinions or what would be the use of these forums to begin with if indeed we all agreed to agree with everyone or we all flatly disagreed without giving a reason? What indeed would be the reason or why would we even bother to reply or get involved?

 Signature 

In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holely Goat I bring the truth

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 August 2007 02:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  66
Joined  2007-08-11

What the hell are you talking about?

I’m assuming that you are talking about me?

Would you like to maybe quote what you’re referring to?

Satan was not “made up” in the bible - it’s a pre-Christian word that means “accuser” and the Hebrews get the word from the Arabic “Shaitan”.

I guess if you don’t get it, you don’t get it. It’s not cloaked in esoteric jargon… how can you be confused by such a straight forward statement as “Nature encompasses all that exists. There is nothing supernatural in Nature”?

 Signature 

“Our world was brutal, immoral, smug and conventional. We had unbounded contempt for all those who did not sin as we sinned.” Jim Tully Circus Parade

“Books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul whose progeny they are; nay they do preserve as in a vial the purest efficacy and extraction of that living intellect that bred them.” - John Milton Aeropagitca

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 August 2007 08:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7570
Joined  2007-03-02

Well, Satan was once some sort of god, before he was an angel.  Bob Price mentioned it in one of his books or something.  He told the story that pre-dated X-ianity.  So, Kevin is right that it pre-dates X-ianity.

[quote=“Holely Goat”]Either that or some one has a few loose screws needing tightening.

No offense Goat, but this is a bit offending, esp if one is on the receiving end.  I can see one of the reasons Kevin is upset, among others.  He’s not pulling your leg.  There are people who are of the religion called Satanism.  I don’t know what is and I won’t criticize it either because I don’t know what it is truly about.  I just went around with someone else who criticized and condemned Humanism a couple hours ago and they had no clue what they were talking about.  So, I can empathize with Kevin on this one.  So, would you please try to be less insulting to Kevin or at least cut down on what could be taken as offensive to him.  In other words:  Mind your P&Qs; please.

OK, I can’t seem to quote freehanded on this board, but I think everyone knows who all I’m addressing in both paragraphs.

[ Edited: 19 August 2007 08:56 PM by Mriana ]
 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 August 2007 10:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  245
Joined  2007-07-27

:tongue: Oh sorry your most high holiness Reverend Slaughter that I offended your god. My most humble apology to His Holiness.
I never realize His Most Highness was going to be offended by my remarks of his most powerful avatar god. Blessings to him oh great lord Slaughter. And may Aradia and Beleasa rain their blessing upon you. A’heil’aam. And may Thor and Zeus watch over you always. And may Baloma and Apsaras be with you always. May Hatu and Bella go with you. As I will so mote it be. A’heil’aam.

 Signature 

In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holely Goat I bring the truth

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 August 2007 11:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

I, too, apologize to Kevin, Representative of the Church of Satan, for not respecting his “lowly view of humanity.”

My bad…

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2