Loading...

Antipresuppositionalantimetaphysicalanarchism. from Dark Enlightenment's blog

Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Antitheism: Opposition to belief in the existence of a god or gods.

There is question of primacy here.  The above two seem awfully close.  But I do believe one carries the autonomous 'spirit' of satanism. 

The thing that sticks out to me is a sheepish mindset of popular atheism. Let's post Christopher Hitchins quotes on facebook and show my Christian upbringing what for.  It's like ginger beer. It has a similar word, but how it manifests is more closely related to "rebellious phases". This has implications on these very boards.

Often times you'll get some ironic new age inflection with Atheism. There are no gods, but you can totally align energy centers and a bunch of other misinterpreted tantric bullshit. 

What about the criticism:


You know, it is just its just the natural homeostasis your body seeks to maintain. You experience it. Those weird involuntary shivers that are progressively more uncomfortable as you age.  That's your fucking whatever aligning. The rest is just chemicals you trick your brain to release. That feeling of energy shooting up your spine and out the top of your head? Occam's Razor get buried under vedic transcription? 


And that is the difference.

The antitheist attacks all manner of faith and presupposition. All manner of shit you read and assume is correct. The 10th through whateverteenth planet. This also goes for the LaVeytheist parroting something Anton posthumously pwns them with to attacking yoga bitches that learned some sanskrit.

Opposition to belief. That is the key.

This can read as Opposition to belief in:

Gods
Supernatural forces
Ghost, spirits, spectres, and orbs
Angels and Demons
Witchcraft
Magic and Magick 
Cryptozoology
Time Travelers
Time Skips
Time shifts
Aliens
Parallel universes

And so on like that...

Anti-theism isn't a criticism of god, but a criticism of the lack of criticism and close-mindedness of baseless assertion.  Skeptism and critical thinking are one in the same.

The person harnessing the energy from a symmetrical quartz crystal loses emphatically to the researchers trying to turn that same quartz crystal into qubit memory storage applications. It doesn't have as much of a draw because the standards to demonstrate without refute is too boring and dry for most.

This brings up a type of agnosticism displayed, not with god, but knowledge itself. "I don't know" is a valid answer. 100 years of discovery can attest to that. 

However, don't get all apologetic and think lack of knowledge equates to certainty.

This tard comes to mind. Giorgio Tsukalos can sit beside Mitsuo Matayoshi , and Marshall Applewhite in this regard.  


Which inevitably comes to religion:

I have no clue what conditions proceeded the big bang does not equate to creationism. It is presumptive leaps like this that the anti-theist queues in on.

Newfound atheists can be as annoying as Christians.
Antitheists like to fact check rational wiki, skeptical Inquirer, and snopes.  There is no value in faith as is commonly practiced. 

This leads to the most used criticism:

"See, you need to rely on the words of others, so science is like your god and scripture. Because you need it for answers."

I stopped fighting that one. Fuck me all to hell for trusting a double blind, accredited, peer reviewed work that demonstrates and illustrates a phenomenon in a way that can't be refuted over "leaps of faith". 

Yet, there is room for imagination. 


You can still speculate. Inference does not contradict anti-theism.

You never know, Humma Kavula may be out there as space pope to a sect that believes in a cosmic sneeze.

Space is really big.

 I just don't know. 

And even the refined Drake equation that includes "gallactic habitable zones" still leaves hundreds of thousands of intelligent civilizations in the local group alone. (About 55 galaxies).

I can initially infer this equation to be correct: 


The problem is, travelling 99.999% the speed of light (where aging would be minimal) is really really hard to achieve beyond the particle accelerator. 

Fun Fact: At .999c a trip to Alpha Centauri would age you 71 days in 4.3 years. You'd need good inertial dampeners though 


Infantile civilization we are.  


Share:
Previous post     
     Next post
     Blog home

The Wall

AK Mod
Sep 8
Define "exist". Because, of course, if it can be named it exists - at least on some level. Further complicating the matters is that even things such as ideas, fantasies, and out-right falsehoods can touch and shape reality with all the potency of a nuclear bomb. Sometimes even more so. Additionally, if these things - god or gods -were found to be real and bound to the empirical world, that would automatically disqualify them from the mantle. As an agnostic (in the sense that such a thing *cannot* be known) my only real beef are with those that insist that it can be empirically proven or disproven one way or another.Define "exist". Because, of course, if it can be named it exists - at least on some level. Further complicating the matters is that even things such as ideas, fantasies, and out-right falseh...See more
Obscura TITS
Sep 8
This is a wonderful post. I think all scientists like myself end up atheists. I do believe spirits are natural, not supernatural. Programs or glitches stitched into the fabric of space time. I do think science will prove the spiritual. It is quantifiable, no one has bothered to study it. I think spirits, quote on quote, are what we would call aliens, and many times I have seen the lwa, gods, or demons assume physical form where they were bodily and visible to everyone yet performed miracles, quote on quote. This is a natural phenomena as old as time. The mysterious stranger at your door. If I had sampled Baron Samedis flesh, it would have proved interesting results. Childhoods End scenario, of course. They are here to push us to evolve. I can promise you every person on this Earth has seen spirits in the flesh and thought them humanThis is a wonderful post. I think all scientists like myself end up atheists. I do believe spirits are natural, not supernatural. Programs or glitches stitched into the fabric of space time. I do thin...See more
Dark Enlightenment
Sep 8
There is no room for semantics, and you said it. Things that can't be experienced by the 5 senses don't qualify for worldly consideration... to me. Others can build fucking statues around it, and do build statues around it. It's indirect effect on the day to day is not in question, but the mindset of the third party operator that takes thess spiritual fantasies (matters of faith) and shapes society with them.

Partly, it's the mindset of "It's non-empirical, but that doesn't make it any less meaningful."

Ok, now say there is another force that acts on the universe, Love. It emanates like invisible rainbows of compassion and it sensed by our third eye.

The difference in agnostic approaches is seen. Unknown to one just means you can't know. Unknown to other means invalid until proven otherwise. You can't use what you can't know.
There is no room for semantics, and you said it. Things that can't be experienced by the 5 senses don't qualify for worldly consideration... to me. Others can build fucking statues around it, and do b...See more
Dark Enlightenment
Sep 8
And for clarification: Things you speculate on are NEVER held as truth, and never something you can make a valid argument with until it's proven. I Can threorize about shit all I want but at the end of the day faster than light travel is still ruled out by special relativity.And for clarification: Things you speculate on are NEVER held as truth, and never something you can make a valid argument with until it's proven. I Can threorize about shit all I want but at the end o...See more
AK Mod
Sep 9
This isn't a semantics game. The question is if god *exists*. By definition it transcends both time and space, and reality (at least the paradigm of reality I live in) affords all sorts of emergent and transcendent phenomena. A good example would be one you've brought up yourself: "does meaning exist?". The only thing that makes this a more valid question than asking if "does god exist?" Is that we both know what we mean by "meaning". We don't actually know what we mean by "god". Igtheism addresses this issueThis isn't a semantics game. The question is if god *exists*. By definition it transcends both time and space, and reality (at least the paradigm of reality I live in) affords all sorts of emergent an...See more
AK Mod
Sep 9
and I think that's a more important angle to address. Until anyone can say for certain what they even mean by "god" it's just as absurd to assert having belief in it as it is to assert a disbelief in it. Even so, god - the nebulous concept - evidently does exist and is at least as efficacious at manipulating the real as the very hands in front of my face. In my world, it is by virtue of influencing and shaping the world that a thing's reality is demonstrated and conferred.and I think that's a more important angle to address. Until anyone can say for certain what they even mean by "god" it's just as absurd to assert having belief in it as it is to assert a dis...See more
Dark Enlightenment
Sep 9
"I think that's a more important angle to address. Until anyone can say for certain what they even mean by "god". it's just as absurd to assert having belief in it as it is to assert a disbelief in it."

Exactly.
Concepts that have no applicble proof one way or the other are without value. Ideas vs. experience; abstraction vs visceral. It is not valid enough for even slight consideration because it can only exist as a concept in peoples head. Same goes for subjective meaning. Pro and Con are irrelevant, How humans purport this nebulous concept (and hold it as intrinsic) and shape the world is the motivation for it to remain invalid data until proven in either direction. You show me an omnipotent intelligence that isn't looking at the fractals of a fucking tree and calling it intelligent design.

Its not belief or disbelief as much as it is saying get your transcendent nebulous phenomenon the fuck out my face until you can back it up one way or the other. The only influence god has on my world is in the fuckload of apologists that use strawmen to place empiricism beside faith.
"I think that's a more important angle to address. Until anyone can say for certain what they even mean by "god". it's just as absurd to assert having belief in it as it is to assert a ...See more
AK Mod
Sep 11
It seems to me more of a matter of expedience. It wouldn't make sense to wait on a proof one may never see within their life time, and doubt causes the sort hesitation that is almost always more calamitous in the end than if one were to act as if completely certain of a patently incorrect notion (see Hamlet). The most sensible of types concede "I don't really 'know', but I act as if there is or isn't because____" and I think at the stage it leaves the realm of idle speculation and enters behavior modification territory: to which one would be right to be offended if pressed with, and foolish to insist upon doing so to others.It seems to me more of a matter of expedience. It wouldn't make sense to wait on a proof one may never see within their life time, and doubt causes the sort hesitation that is almost always more calam...See more
You need to sign in to comment
Certain features and pages can only be viewed by registered users.

Join Now

Donate

This site is largely funded by donations. You can show your support by donating. Thanks. Every dollar helps.

Like and Share