Jump to content

All Gods Aside


Recommended Posts

I would seperate dreams from memories. They are different.

After the fact, all you have of a dream is a memory.


I have learnt from Discovery channel that the reason we don't remember things is because at the center of our brain, there is filter channelling memories.

The discovery Channel isn't exactly a reliable source of information.


There's a flaw in that reasoning. You see, if he knew Adam and Eve could potentially eat from the Tree of Life, why would he put it there? Doesn't he have absolute control? Didn't he create the world? The Tree of Life was planted to test their faith to him. That was the only absolute way to rebel against him, by eating the Tree of Life. Everything placed on earth at that time had a reason.

Nothing you've said disputes what I've said. The story of the Garden of Eden goes like this: God created Adam and Eve and told them that they could do anything that they wanted to, except eat from The Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil, because if they ate from that tree, they would "surely die" that day. The serpent comes along and says to Eve, "God is lying. Eating the fruit of this tree will not kill you. God is just worried that you will have as much power as he does". Adam and Eve eat from the tree. God finds out. He then says "oh, dear, you ate from the tree, so I'm going to punish you. If I don't throw you out from the garden, you might also eat from the Tree Of Life, and then you'd live forever, and would be as powerful as me". Adam and Eve leave the garden and live for nearly another 1,000 years.


I ask again, who in that story told the truth and who lied?


The bible is already 3000 years old, written by different authors for each book. It is pretty obvious who is bad here, yeah?

Actually, as I've shown, it's ambiguous at best in parts. Especially if you watch the God of the Old Testament.


And I don't see what the book's age or number of authors have to do with it's validity, or how it portrays God.


I don't see it essential why we should pledge allegiance to Satan?

Who said it was?


After all, doesn't Satanism has an anything-goes philsophy?

Satanism also has very little to do with Satan. It's mainly called that to annoy people.


Their ultimate virtue is do anything you desire, murder, slaughter, rape, rob, steal, commit adultery!

Completely wrong. That's half of the creed taken out of context. The actual quote is "An it harm none, 'Do what thou wilt' shall be the whole of the Law". Or, to put it in slightly less pretentious language "As long as you don't hurt anybody, you can do what you want".


So everything you listed there would be disallowed.


There is no right and wrong, no evil, just something created from the mind!

I don't believe in moral absolutes. I think it's easy to say that it's wrong to kill. But if that's the only way to stop somebody from killing a school full of babies, I'd kill someone.


[...]do you think you should believe in a total lawless and absolutely corrupted religion as such?

Well, apart from the fact that you seem to be under some serious misapprehensions about Satanism, I don't think anybody should follow any religion. I think people should live their lives according to what they believe, and not hurt others. Not because they're afraid of getting spanked if they do, but because they think it's the right thing to do.


That is fairly in line with the Satanic beliefs (that's what the "Do what thou wilt" bit is all about, really - taking responsibility for your own actions), but, no I don't think that it's a good religion to follow. Better than some, though.


In Satanism, what does Satan do besides giving in to temptations, promote corruption and evil?

In Satanism, Satan doesn't actually really do anything.


but I told you my beliefs of what I think would have happened, were the Bible stories real. For one thing, Satan would have told Adam and Eve the truth, where their supposedly loving caring God lied to them out of fear. And that's the story told by those who are on his side, writing his propagana for him.


It is obvious who is good or bad.

You're using that word "obvious" again. You agreed that different people interpreted different things differently, and so saying something was "obvious" was not a valid argument for anything.


If this people could do it and yet it wasn't done by them? Then who did?

Nobody, it's a trick. You've provided a link to Skepdic. Read their entry on "Cold Reading". Or this page: http://www.re-quest.net/entertainment/movies-and-tv/tv/john-edward/


I also suggest reading what James Randi has to say on the subject.


Surely something supernatural was involved, there is no better reasoning besides demonic forces.

You claim skepticism, yet you say something like this. Why is it "sure" that something supernatural is involved? That's not critical thinking at all, it's believing the explaination that most closely matches your already-held beliefs. Why is it more likely that something supernatural is involved, than simply that John Edwards uses centuries-old tricks (and new ones, such as editing for TV) to fool people?


Thanks. I can see it now.

So did you watch it? What do you think? Do you think the voodoo doll had powers? Or has Derren shown how much (if not all) of this stuff has it's basis in the human mind, rather than anything supernatural?


Well, they are dead. They belonged in the medieval era.

That doesn't answer my questions. Why does them being dead and in the Medieval era mean that there had to be something supernatural going on? Why is it different from modern-day trepanning and how?


Really? I didn't know that although it doesn't seem as popular as before.

Yes, really. I suggest you need to do research casting a wider net than you have been. Rather than reading just the books that you have, buy some skeptical books, read skeptical sites, and watch skeptical programmes.


It is growing in popularity over there though, soon you will find it all over the States.

I'm English. But you're still not getting what I'm saying. People think they're practicing Feng shui. What they're actually doing is paying people lots of money to move their sofas around. If they were doing Feng Shui, they'd have to be concerned with where their ancestors are buried. They're not. So they're not doing Feng Shui.


Have you heard of Animal Magnetism? It was formed by this guy called Coue. He used the power of magnets to heal, later he found out he didn't need to use magnets anymore, just his mind. He then re-named this to Animal Magnetism.

I have no idea where you got that info from, but that's totally wrong. "Animal Magnetism" is what Franz Mesmer called hypnotism (along with "Mesmerism"), as he thought trances were induced by magnetism. Coue was a pharmacist and hypnotist in the 1920s, who developed the Laws Of Suggestion.


The medicine is the product of the placebo effect, which is nothing more than sugar pills or vitamins that end up deterioating the patient's condition instead of improving it, with the use of placebo effect of course.

Well, no. Not all medicine operates solely on the principal of the placebo effect.


I believe there is an article out there one why some states or possibly the country has banned the use of hypnotism for crime investigation.

My guess that would be because of the tendancy for confabulation. If you can get people to tell you things, but the things you're being told are more likely to be made up than true, then what good is that for investigating crimes?


Hm, it could be the effects of these trance inducing drugs.

I wouldn't call those drugs "trance-inducing" at all.


The one-man rule would have a Cabinet of some kind, but he will be somebody that world can trust and he is the one who has the power to control all, finances etc.

Well, this is one reason that you know it's not going to happen, and that the UM are not complicit, then, isn't it?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


  • Create New...