Satanism and Metal

[Chaos23]

I apologise anonymousnick, if I have offended you. I suppose the muslims I have encountered have given me a bad impression.

 

[Benzine]

you're a fuckin comedian, we all know... please only reply if you have something intelligent to say

Whats wrong with a little humour?

 

[clangorous]

Whats wrong with a little humour?

Nothing wrong man !!!, Actually it was a Good one

 

[Hell Mike]

did anyone bother to look at my post 2 pages back?
try looking at these 5 points about God and see if you can dispute them/prove them wrong. Good luck because to this day, no human has been able to prove these 5 points about the existence of God wrong:

[using Platonic and Aristotlean knowledge as a basis of some points:]
1. Motion cannot start itself, but must be started by something already in motion. An infinite chain of movers is impossible, for then there would be no first mover and therefore no motion at all. The chain MUST have a beginning. The unmoved mover is the one whom we call God.

2. Certain events are caused by other events, which are themselves caused by prior events, and so on. As above the causal chain CANNOT be infinite. The uncaused first cause is the one whom we call God.

3. Certain things are temporary, their existence unoriginal. Their existence is possible rather than necessary. The chain of unoriginal existence CANNOT be infinite but must find its source in a self-existent necessary being. This self-existent necessary being is the one whom we call God.

4. We judge certain things to have a lesser degree of perfection than others. Relative assessments require an absolute standard of perfection. This absolute standard, God, MUST exist.

5. Inanimate things function together to accomplish an ordered purpose. This cannot occur by chance but requires an intelligent designer. The designer is the one whom we call God.

If you can prove those wrong with substantial proof and evidence, THEN you may say there is no God/ultimate power.

The one whom YOU call God. Personally I don't have an opinion in the matter of everything's origin, so don't ask me.

God is not perfect in all ways, or why would he create imperfect things? (Such as Lucifer)

I believe that God, Satan, Good, Evil, call it what you will exists only in people's minds BUT that is obviously enough, we have all seen what belief can make people do. This belief in something I do not acknowledge or find probable or even possible, and the actions it has inspired (such as opressing and eventually nearly killing, for an example which lies close to my own heart, Asatro and the Nordic way of life, cuturally as well as intellectually and 'spiritually'), is what I oppose. Not that I wouldn't gladly do the same against the three weeds from YHWH's root, only without even trying to convert them.

 

[NocturnalSun]

God IS perfect in all ways. His creations are not because he gave such things free will. The things can decide for themselves if they want to do right or wrong. It's a good way of doing things too, because when one goes in the right direction, it means more to him because it was of his own free will and not forced. Yes, religion is about belief, but mainly FAITH. Belief in the unknown. No BELIEF, however, can cause a person to act contrary to their teachings. That is a work of the person on a human level. If an intangible thought within the mind can pick up a sword and go out and kill millions of people for not believing in that thought, then I will personally give you all my possessions and even let you gouge out my eyes with a spork. See, a thought cannot do those things. It is the human who must choose what to do, so don't go blaming that on belief as millions have done in the past, because it's far from true. Same goes for the 'actions it has inspired' line you said also.

***FINAL NOTE to all you assholes who still bring up the Crusades, the Inquisition, and any other holy wars: I've said it plenty of times and this is the last time. This generation of people is NOT responsible for the actions taken by our ancestors long ago. It's not our fault these things happened and it was out of our control, so quit bitching at us trying to convince that it's our fault for the previous actions taken by members of the Church.***

 

[DrX]

I am not going to take a stand on anything here, but I would refer anyone who would like to do some further research to The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown (maybe it has already been mentioned). Also, I have been reading some of Godel's and Anselm's work, look it up on the web, it's easy enough to find. C.S. Lewis was an staunch atheist, who converted to Catholicism after reading their arguments. Also, I find it very interesting how many people confuse the notions of God and religion (again, this refers to the work of Godel and Anselm)

 

[anonymousnick2001]

I apologise anonymousnick, if I have offended you. I suppose the muslims I have encountered have given me a bad impression.

Apology accepted.

A note of caution, however, and you can interpret it how you wish:

I reacted lightly. Be very careful. A Muslim's faith in God is his/her life. What would you be willing to do to defend your life? Just remember that before you make statements.

 

[SculptedCold]

Good luck because to this day, no human has been able to prove these 5 points about the existence of God wrong:

True and not true. There have certainly been many arguments posed which pretty much smash the following.

1. Motion cannot start itself, but must be started by something already in motion. An infinite chain of movers is impossible, for then there would be no first mover and therefore no motion at all. The chain MUST have a beginning. The unmoved mover is the one whom we call God.

This is very interesting....it's the physical parallel to the causal chain, and one that I admit i've never heard before. It's pretty much impossible to deny this, up until the point where you say we call it God of course. Simply, that is an inductive claim. The origin is a hidden value. Something we will never be able to know about. Calling it God for lack of a better explanation is in no way proof of its existence.

2. Certain events are caused by other events, which are themselves caused by prior events, and so on. As above the causal chain CANNOT be infinite. The uncaused first cause is the one whom we call God.

Same as above, plus the fact that causality is pretty much a hypothetical concept. Yes, of course we have causality in the world, but many philosophers have simply said why does there have to be a first cause? What do people actually know about the universe that can conclusively lead them to state that there just isn't an infinite series of causes? Nothing. It's completely hypothetical. There is nothing logically absurd about making the claim that space and time is utterly infinite, just as there is no logical absurdity in saying there has to be a first cause.

3. Certain things are temporary, their existence unoriginal. Their existence is possible rather than necessary. The chain of unoriginal existence CANNOT be infinite but must find its source in a self-existent necessary being. This self-existent necessary being is the one whom we call God.

I've never seen this one before either......looks pretty weird to me, but structurally exactly the same as the previous two, and subject to the same criticisms.

4. We judge certain things to have a lesser degree of perfection than others. Relative assessments require an absolute standard of perfection. This absolute standard, God, MUST exist.

I'm sorry, no offense, but if you honestly seek to prove the existence of God with an argument like this.....well..... *shakes head* What to say? This seems to be based to an extent on Plato's Forms and Theory of Recollection, which were, lets face it, made-up out of thin air. Plato practically destroys his own theory when he starts talking about relativity, which seemed much more intuitive and based in actual reasoning. Take away the fairy world of perfect Forms and you'll find Plato's ideas about relativity sit perfectly fine on their own. There's absolutely no reason why relative judgements should have divine absolute standards, the fact that they are relative largely renders a fixed value absurd.

5. Inanimate things function together to accomplish an ordered purpose. This cannot occur by chance but requires an intelligent designer. The designer is the one whom we call God.

This is probably the most convincing argument for God that mankind will ever know, but David Hume did an excellent job of destroying it in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. The arguments are long and complex and i'd take-up a whole page trying to summarize and paraphrase, so i'll just recommend reading that book if you haven't (it's a small volume) and pay special attention to the Weakness of Analogy argument forwarded by Philo.

If you can prove those wrong with substantial proof and evidence, THEN you may say there is no God/ultimate power.

There's no possible way to prove or disprove God's existence. We can no more say he doesn't exist than you can say he does. All you have left is faith and reason, and neither of those are going to prove anything (though we can all laugh at Descartes for trying.) That's just a simple fact. Get over it.

 

[NocturnalSun]

I realize in our current state of mind/being/evolutionary level or something (cant find word), we are unable to prove God's existence, yet are also incapable of proving that he doesn't exist. Such things may in fact come to us someday in the future, but for now we don't know. by the way, I've said before that every text up until "...is whom we call God" is the facts. The ..is whom we call God line is opinion, as I was using these 5 points to explain why Christians believe in this thing called "God." It's just a name. I was trying to state that there is proof of a higher being be it "God" or some other name. if you'd like to explain on AIM or something, I'd be glad to listen and have a discussion, though.

 

[DarkHeiress]

"Running with the devil" is a Van Halen song. The devil is a big part o metal
lyrics, like "the number of the beast" and others. I don't take it too seriousley. And
besides, satanism isn't about hailing or beliving in the devil.

 

[clangorous]

"Running with the devil" is a Van Halen song. The devil is a big part o metal
lyrics, like "the number of the beast" and others. I don't take it too seriousley. And
besides, satanism isn't about hailing or beliving in the devil.

Then What is Satanism ???, Please enlighten us . U seem to be from the land of Black Metal bands , So please elloborate

 

[Giles]

My point was perfectly valid old boy, to what extent can we call something proof? It's like the old philosophy arguement "Did you study philosophy or just think you studied philosophy?"

 

[NocturnalSun]

Do YOU even know the answer to your question Giles, o mighty source of all knowledge?

 

[Benzine]

Nice retort, NocturnalSun. He made a valid point and you have to use sarcasm. If you're going to reply at least make it intelligent

 

[NocturnalSun]

it was intelligent in the fact that he cannot hope to make a valid point out of this question if he does not, in fact, know the answer.

 

[Benzine]

it was intelligent in the fact that he cannot hope to make a valid point out of this question if he does not, in fact, know the answer.

Why? Surely it was a rhetorical question.

Face it, Giles is the KING OF ANGLIA!

 

[Giles]

Much praise indeed, but I'm king of nothing save maybe myself. I could give you an answer to my statement, but I could not give you the answer if such a thing there is.

 

[NocturnalSun]

then I really don't know why you posed the question...

 

[Giles]

Ha ha ha, an interesting approach. All I was trying to say is that can you really take anything as proof? What makes something proof? Each person will take something different as "proof" to be convinced of something.

 

[NocturnalSun]

yes, "proof" is very broad, yet the things I have mentioned up there should contain enough proof for everyone to safely conclude that existence exists due to some higher entity or being.