Evidence for Thelema.

[Agatha]

I've explained it. It's deep, and it requires study. Post #31 does a good job. But the main point was actually to show that Thelema is more plausible than the
rubbish modern scientist peddle. And that's not a straw man, evidenced by many discussions on this board. Including this one, in fact.

Post #31 seems to discuss paradoxes of maths and geometry. My reading about Thelema (which admittedly has been brief, of necessity) has been much more about free will and Crowley's moral philosophy. I accept that Thelema may well be correct about the maths and geometry, but many religions or philosophies of life have some things correct - that doesn't make everything contained therein correct also.

The thing is, we get this kind of argument quite often. It's often couched in forms like "you believe x, but x is absurd, therefore y is true". Quite often, the x is not something that is held to be true (like multiverse or simulation theory, both of which are hypotheticals), and further and more importantly, disproving x does not advance y at all. The truth or otherwise of y depends on the evidence, and that's what you seem to be lacking so far in this thread.

Saying that Thelema is more plausible than two things which are currently just hypothetical ideas does nothing to advance Thelema.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Nah, if someone just uses the word "pareidolia", that's just going to feed your desire to find patterns in the words and unsurprisingly find the patterns your looking for.

I think it's significant that the word "paraeidolia" is an anagram of "I do a para-lie", which itself suggests that things appearing to be untrue are in fact no such thing. It could be argued, therefore, that trivialism, the position that all statements are true, is itself encoded in the word "paraeidolia," and that this is a plausible alternative source from which Crowley may have derived it.

Well, I think it makes about as much sense as the OP, anyway.

Dave

 

[TheAdversary]

Post #31 seems to discuss paradoxes of maths and geometry. My reading about Thelema (which admittedly has been brief, of necessity) has been
much more about free will and Crowley's moral philosophy. I accept that Thelema may well be correct about the maths and geometry, but many religions or
philosophies of life have some things correct - that doesn't make everything contained therein correct also.

The thing is, we get this kind of argument quite often. It's often couched in forms like "you believe x, but x is absurd, therefore y is true".
Quite often, the x is not something that is held to be true (like multiverse or simulation theory, both of which are hypotheticals),
and further and more importantly, disproving x does not advance y at all. The truth or otherwise of y depends on the evidence, and that's what you seem to be
lacking so far in this thread.

Saying that Thelema is more plausible than two things which are currently just hypothetical ideas does nothing to advance Thelema.

You didn't notice that I was mainly arguing about Free Will and Master Morality, then? And I've provided lots of evidence for this. And I've found that they
don't want to know about that, either. So, I thought, let's take a different route.
Unfortunately, the Mathematical stuff requires a lot more study, so I seem to be unable to make my point in this way, either.
And I'm not saying that x is absurd, therefore y. I'm saying that x is absurd, and there is evidence for y. Big difference!

 

[jsfisher]

You didn't notice that I was mainly arguing about Free Will and Master Morality, then?

I doubt anybody noticed that that post was mainly arguing about free will and master morality. Perhaps had you used phrases like "free will" or "master morality" somewhere in the post, people might have caught on, though.

 

[TheAdversary]

It's just that, no matter the circumstances, you never accept anything as evidence from me while you are much more lenient towards other ideas
that would fall much sooner if the same standard of rigour was employed.
The unfairness is unscientific. Thelema should be much sooner accepted than Simulation Theory EVEN IF both turn out to be absurd.
The crap-level of modern science, in certain areas, actually exceeds the crap-level of many Religions!
And that is, in any case, dangerous.

 

[TheAdversary]

I doubt anybody noticed that that post was mainly arguing about free will and master morality. Perhaps had you used phrases like "free will" or
"master morality" somewhere in the post, people might have caught on, though.

I should have said 'on this board'. I usually argue Free Will and Moral Philosophy.

 

[TheAdversary]

Nah, if someone just uses the word "pareidolia", that's just going to feed your desire to find patterns in the words and unsurprisingly
find the patterns your looking for.

They're looking for standard rebuttals. Whatever you might think of me, it should be clear that, at least, the standard rebuttals, as part of the
Sceptical Gospel, don't work as well on me. I'm a more sophisticated Woo. I'm the Superbug!

 

[jsfisher]

I should have said 'on this board'. I usually argue Free Will and Moral Philosophy.

The context was post #31. So, I don't understand your comment. Be that as it may, let's stick to this thread, if we may. The title (selected by you) is "Evidence of Thelema." Got any?

 

[MikeG]

I should have said 'on this board'. I usually argue Free Will and Moral Philosophy.

Really? I've noticed that you seem to spend most of your time eulogising eugenics, and advocating genocide.

 

[TheAdversary]

The context was post #31. So, I don't understand your comment. Be that as it may, let's stick to this thread, if we may.
The title (selected by you) is "Evidence of Thelema." Got any?

Invoke me under my stars! Love is the law, love under will. Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love.
There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye well! He, my prophet, hath chosen, knowing the law of the fortress, and the great mystery of the
House of God.

On these two threads, I attempt to get this Paradox of Love across :

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=306149
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=306024

 

[TheAdversary]

I was saying that the Slave/Master morality theory is easier to understand ... well, that's false. Understanding this theory properly requires
study, submission. Submission to the Universe, that is. First there is the Sacrifice of the Priest, to attain to the Ultimate Power. This basically
means a readiness to be absolutely destroyed. And, from Liber 418 :

Search, therefore, if there be yet one drop of blood that is not gathered into the cup of Babylon the Beautiful, for in that little pile of dust,
if there could be one drop of blood, it should be utterly corrupt; it should breed scorpions and vipers, and the cat of slime.

If the smallest assumption remains, you're not truly sceptical. The sacrifice of Blood is the sacrifice of Thought to Scepticism.
The book however hints at some immaterial Purely Sceptical position.

From the Study, comes the Law. And it is because of the Law that Master Morality is just. Otherwise, you get a defective leader. And all throughout
history, that's all we ever saw. This is why the Master is so impopular ...

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I've just read this thread althewaythrough and early in my reading actually looked up Ms Thelema and her law.

The law of Thelema is "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will."

I must say that's as useful direction for one's life as the worship of a wet piece of seaweed. Surely the Devil is in the Details? How does anyone apply this amazing piece of philosophy in the Real World®?

 

[jsfisher]

On these two threads, I attempt to get this Paradox of Love across :

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=306149
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=306024

The paradox of love isn't the topic of this thread, nor am I particularly keen on ferreting through other long threads for unidentified, not clearly relevant posts you thought interesting.

The topic of this thread is evidence of Thelema. Got any?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Whatever you might think of me, it should be clear that, at least, the standard rebuttals, as part of the Sceptical Gospel, don't work as well on me.

No, I can see that demands for actual evidence seem to work every bit as well on you as on homeopaths, psychics, flying saucerors and 9/11 truthers.

Dave

 

[TheAdversary]

The Seer prayeth that a cloud may come between him and the sun, so that he may shut out the terror of the vision. And he is afire;
he is terribly athirst; and no help can come to him, for the shew-stone blazeth ever with the fury and the torment and the blackness, and the stench of
human flesh. The bowels of little children are torn out and thrust into his mouth, and a poison is dropped into his eyes. And Lilith, a black monkey crawling
with filth, running with open sores, an eye torn out, eaten of worms, her teeth rotten, her nose eaten away, her mouth a putrid mass of green slime, her dugs
dropping and cancerous, clings to him, kisses him.

(Kill me! kill me!)

Here, the present-day Mental Health industry is described. I've said before that their conviction that they're helping is what makes them capable of
unlimited cruelty. This is presented here as a horrible thing trying to kiss you. The book is full of great imaginative poetry like that, hitting
the nail right on the head for those who are at that level.

 

[TheAdversary]

I'm presenting evidence the whole time. They just don't want to know about it and come up with excuses. I don't understand, I don't want to read it.
Yeah, if you don't want to study, I can't help you. It's not an easy subject. Two times this happened already, on this very thread.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Here, the present-day Mental Health industry is described.

No it isn't. It's perfectly clear that the passage you just described relates an incident a few years ago when a lorry shed a load of plasterboard on the M25 on a very hot day, people were trapped in their cars for about ten hours, children were having to use the hard shoulder as a toilet, heat sores were rampant, and the police had to ferry in bottled water by helicopter to prevent people dying from dehydration. I don't see how anyone can possibly interpret it in any other way.

Dave

 

[jsfisher]

Here, the present-day Mental Health industry is described.

Fascinating. But how did you connect the passage you cited to the present-day mental health industry?

 

[TheAdversary]

I must say that's as useful direction for one's life as the worship of a wet piece of seaweed. Surely the Devil is in the Details?
How does anyone apply this amazing piece of philosophy in the Real World?

That's why I'm arguing here. And then people start attempting to 'correct' me. And then the discussion ends in a reductio ad absurdum which then proves,
as far as can be, that my original position really wasn't that bad. This has happened over and over and over again. Just read the discussions
in which I'm active. They start arguing for absurd things like violations of the laws of Thermodynamics. That's the evidence, that their position just ends
up absurd and not mine, if you're honest.
And a lot of times I can't really make my argument because they accuse me of 'meaningless' statements, which they immediately assume are meaningless
to me or anyone else as well. The Book has this to say :

Nor shall they who cry aloud their folly that thou meanest nought avail; thou shall reveal it: thou availest: they are the slaves of because:
They are not of me.

And :

Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise.

You're all victims of Rationality. You take it as an absolute, like Ayn Rand. That's nonsense. Mankind really _needs_ to transcend Rationality,
otherwise understanding anything at all about the Universe is impossible.

 

[TheAdversary]

And that's why all the physical theories are now moving towards absurdity. You can almost, but not quite, prove that Lord Xenu exists as I like to say
because it immediately puts the finger on the sore spot : Those theories of Multiverse or Simulation are no better than Religion, in fact, they're
worse. The mind sciences as well, are moving towards absurdity and are becoming indistinguishable from junk science. Mindfulness etc. etc.
This provides the evidence that there is something wrong with the current system and it concerns the breakdown of Rationality.
Again, lots and lots and lots of evidence for this but, because of the nature of the case, you don't want to know about it.
It's breaking down, and the scientists are still holding on to their world view. That's why their Religion must be science-like.
So, magical computer programmers are fine because it's computers 'n' stuff, but Angels and Demons aren't because it's 'stupid religion'.
Yeah, right. And ... this is evidence. You can read on this board that they're actually taking magical computer programmers seriously!!!
Nonsense.