Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated July 26)

Skeptical Illuminism

Reply
- Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:19:06 EST hbGjJd0p No.74686
File: 1531801146749.jpg -(16477B / 16.09KB, 480x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Skeptical Illuminism
This is a topic from /Sagan/ that got a little too /Spooky/ so I'm moving it here. Idk if the audience will be more favorable or not though...

Topic: Scientific Occultism. Skeptical Theurgy. Applying the methodology of the scientific process to the difficult problems of metaphysics and mysticism. Do you do it ya /spooks/? When you integrate a new esoteric philosophy or try to wrap your head around a new paranormal manifestation, do you try to keep an objective mind and learn the truth of the matter using what should be common sense principles, or do you just like to go whole hog on the 'I want to believe' angle?

Keep in mind, just like true love doesn't mean thinking someone is perfect but rather recognizing their complete humanity, true belief in an idea, an ideology, a faith, whatever, means being willing to put it to the test, rather than sheltering it.

ITT: General discussion of the concept of rational, pragmatic approaches to occult phenomena, and or angry kibbutzing about whether or not that's a dumb idea.
>>
Doris Gozzletodging - Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:33:26 EST hbGjJd0p No.74687 Reply
1531802006749.jpg -(55370B / 54.07KB, 850x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>74686
Here's some blurbs I wrote in the original thread to get things started a bit. The topic there was specifically about astrology, but I think you can generalize the concept pretty easily without me having to lay it out.

>Astrology is not a homogenous field. There are dozens of flavors of it, and only the most garishly self-serving and low-brow seriously posit that the positions in ones natal chart are what completely determine your future and personality. In its most primitive, ancient sense, astrology is really a theory of human psychology and sociology communicated through astrological symbols and narratives. The ancients were aware of this, at least in inner circles; unfortunately most modern practitioners of astrology stem from its revival of the Victorian era, which, like with most things, took astrology at face value...
>The ancients observed that there were patterns in the way people behaved, with the same unique and coherent personality types seeming to recur over and over, and each with unique properties of interaction. In reality, they were bumping up against the personality types, something we might today characterize through models like the Myers-Briggs typology.

>In whatever region where advanced astrology developed (it appeared independently multiple times throughout the ancient and medieval periods) they matched these types to legendary figures in their myths, which were themselves, unknowingly, based on the archetypes of the collective unconscious, which is itself not necessarily a mystical thing but merely the suggestion that all humans share a fundamental underlying symbolic landscape. In this way, whether knowingly or not, they identified that the mythologues embodied in the archetypes manifest as psychological tendencies in individuals, and dynamical interactions within society.

>Taking this as their hypothesis, all the rest of the history of astrology as a natural philosophy were about determining what the exact 'influence' of each planet or sign was. Unwittingly, they were hunting down individual psychological phenomena, in some cases in ways that survived into the actual discipline of psychology (for example, we call people 'lunatics' because such people were formerly believed to be crazy in relation to an imbalance in the position of the moon in their chart.)

>Now, as modern people, we do not seriously need to believe that there is actually some kind of energy field or force emanating from the moon that, if it hit one at the right angle, might make one more susceptible to insanity. Rather, as our cultural narratives about the moon (for example) tap into a specific current of our collective psyche, analyzing the narratives about the moon, what astrological data suggest about the moon in relation to you personally, can reveal interesting information about one's own mind and relation with others that, if interpreted symbolically and skeptically, provides and additional stream of information to help you understand your life. Naturally, you should trust your reason. If you get a positive cancer result, but your astrologist is trying to convince you that your descending lunar node means it's actually benign, please, get the chemo. But if you carefully look at what the symbols in your natal chart, or a specific time chart, suggest according to the principles of astrology, it gives you a narrative to reflect on which, correct or not, provides an otherwise opaque window into the workings of your own soul.
>>
James Crippersteg - Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:35:24 EST a8QQbjL0 No.74690 Reply
I think part of the allure is in the mystery of it all. I'm sure that proper study would make some incredible discoveries about the nature of everything, but unfortunately, astral day-trippers and scientists mix like oil and water. Science quenches its anus in quiet fury over anything that seems like heebie-jeebie nonsense; and the light of proof tends to illuminate a shaman's cunning tricks.

There also seems to be a strong tendency for /x/traterrestrials to appear to know more than they do, because it elevates a person above the understanding of others, without having to prove anything. I find it fascinating that so many shamans and trippers have this uncanny and inspiring faith in their beliefs; but, if you put them all in a room, I feel like you'd end up with nothing but arguments, and overuse of the evil eye. Maybe that's why a merging of science and spirituality is such a good idea: We've found the pulse, but we can't seem to figure out the creature, and we're prone to overstating our medical ability.

Then again, what do I know? Apart from the fact that schizos have no quality control over their slews of puns.
>>
David Druppergold - Wed, 18 Jul 2018 15:15:35 EST OrwPXw4+ No.74693 Reply
>>74686
i practiced Wicca in sixth grade, now a days i practice alchemy and enochian.
i am a schitzophrenic and take my meds. iv seen some shit. woom
>>
David Druppergold - Wed, 18 Jul 2018 15:18:22 EST OrwPXw4+ No.74694 Reply
>>74693
i once read a theory on astrology. the man argued that the configuration of the fields in the sun imprint upon the embryo at conception.
>>
Edward Brookhood - Wed, 18 Jul 2018 17:57:31 EST hbGjJd0p No.74695 Reply
>>74690
>> astral day-trippers and scientists mix like oil and water
I think this is a problem of dogma. These groups have been conditioned to hate each other, but for most of the history of science it mixed comfortably with the occult (Newton was famously an astrologer.)

>> but, if you put them all in a room, I feel like you'd end up with nothing but arguments,
I feel like this is exactly why we need to apply pragmatic programs to occult knowledge. The potential value for the whole of humanity if these forces were properly understood is too great to keep this whole field as a playground for narcissists and histrionics.

That said, it would go both ways if we could break the stigma. Science could learn a lot about self-examination and catching those sneaky a priori assumptions, just as much as mysticism could stand to learn that sometimes, a dumb idea really is just a dumb idea and should be left alone, and doing so doesn't mean 'you're just not open minded enough, maaaan'.

>>74693
Cool man. Hey, be careful with that Enochian stuff though. It really is not a joke.
I think there's certainly an advantage conferred by schizophrenia to certain aspects of this kind of project (not minimizing the costs however.) In a traditional society, someone like you would almost certainly fill the role of shaman, and it's a shame how, since industrial society couldn't find a use for such people, they merely decided to label them pathological to get them out of sight. The same brain changes that allows humans to be geniuses, have language, create civilization, is also what sometimes makes us schizophrenics. You've taken one for the team, and should be celebrated.
>>
William Gemmerkeg - Mon, 23 Jul 2018 19:35:19 EST hbGjJd0p No.74711 Reply
>>74704
Stopped listening the second he tried to conflate dozens of different traditions that have nothing to do with each other. Bad video, the exact opposite of what I am suggesting we should do in this thread.
>>
Barnaby Hillypag - Tue, 24 Jul 2018 00:21:58 EST eyeJsiXl No.74713 Reply
>>74711
You might be advanced enough then that you need to hear the lecture in full. He actually says at the beginning of the presentation that you won't get the full effect of understanding if you don't watch the whole thing without cuts or skips. He says it's all heavily context important.
>>
Reuben Tootway - Tue, 24 Jul 2018 16:36:05 EST hbGjJd0p No.74716 Reply
>>74713
I fell for your bait and you successfully wasted 8 more minutes of my life, good job. I don't know where to begin with this guy.
The Qlipoth as the Hell of the Sephiroth is only one possible interpretation, a weak one. If you're interested in a detailed breakdown of what the Qlippoth and Sephiroth represent I can elaborate.
No one in the world uses the spelling 'Aton' for Atenism, and it, as one of the first monotheistic religions, certainly wasn't proto-Satanism.
He clearly means to say 'Black Sun' but writes 'Black Son'...what an idiot...
Again, not all left hand path religions are some unified Satanic order. The very first thing you learn about Satanism is that almost all versions of it are against all other versions. The notion that they follow some unified globe manipulating cult is utterly hilarious.

By most Satanic interpretations, their beliefs are the opposite of what this guy claims. He says the 'Black Sun' is used to control and subjugate. Most Satanists would claim that is exactly what the 'white sun' of the right-hand-path traditions is used for -- obey Jehovah, obey Odin, obey Christos, whatever. The Black Light is about acknowledging the power within yourself and giving you the wisdom to free yourself from other's control. The Serpent in Eden told us verbatim this is what would happen, and Jehovah never contradicted him, only confirmed it was true.

Moreover, all magic paths are about overcoming the strict laws of nature and bending them to human ends, both LHP and RHP. So his claim that only 'Black Sun Satanists' want to do this is ignorant of the very nature of the flip-side he is juxtaposing them to.

He grossly misunderstands Blavatsky, which is why he disagrees with her conclusion. The Black Order isn't some secret society hiding behind the curtains, it is a tendency in every heart which can be manifest or latent. That's why she wisely counsels silence, which goes straight over his head. She warns that by attempting to uncover what one sees as lies in the inherent polar nature of others, one becomes a fount of lies and delusion oneself. And he hammers on the gas, answering 'So be it!' It's not a matter of courage, it's a matter of self-delusion. What a rube...

Basically the guy clearly knows nothing. He has a surface level knowledge of occult societies gleaned from classic /tinfoil/ tier conspiracy ideas, and somehow believes this represents genuine knowledge. In 2018, literally he can link to the youtube channels of almost every group he mentions, so this ignorance and spread of misinformation is unforgivable. Here are some videos from members of the groups he slanders in their own terms:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1TQAwIP1CQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnijCqa8MuQ
I am by no means a Setian or Luciferian, nor do I agree wholesale with what these guys say either, but to me it is just inexcusable in this day and age to go around sharing misinformation when the truth is an email or youtube comment away.
>>
Fucking Bardcocke - Wed, 25 Jul 2018 15:02:43 EST eyeJsiXl No.74717 Reply
1532545363579.png -(75412B / 73.64KB, 347x351) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>74716
Dude you got 8 minutes in...you have no idea what you're talking about because of that.
>Most Satanists would claim that is exactly what the 'white sun' of the right-hand-path traditions is used for -- obey Jehovah, obey Odin, obey Christos, whatever.
He goes on later to say that yes, the high priests in the catholic church, jewish church, muslim church, etc. etc. etc., and government officials, are servants of the black sun/son(son as in SON of the antigod, they worship anti-truth...even people who hate christianity admit Jesus was a cool as fuck dude), not of the right hand white-path as you call it. There are TWO paths. Truth and Lie. That's it. Those who Lie, are walking the Dark path. Those who tell the truth are walking the light path. He goes on to say it doesn't matter what you self identify as. If you are going around telling the truth, as far as you know it, you are walking the path of light. If you are going around telling lies and working spells (spell=spelling=word magic=manipulating others with lies or obfuscated truth) you are walking the path of dark. Period. It doesn't matter if you're a christian or a satanist. If you're good you're good, if you're bad you're bad, there is no weaseling out of it, no magic spells you can cast to save you from a lifetime of wickedness. He also goes on to say that these people (church of the black sun/son) BELIEVE that if they transmit the "truth" to their victims, (EVEN IF IT'S IN A WAY THAT THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND OR COMPREHEND, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TRAINED IN THE OCCULT/UNSEEN) even if they don't understand well enough to consent, that whatever they DO to THAT PERSON is NOW AND FOREVER KARMICALLY FREE, (He goes on to say this is NOT TRUE, but it's WHAT THESE PEOPLE BELIEVE - Which is why in the end they will wind up in the pit, enslaved, and they did it to themselves with their lies, to everyone, and their lies to themselves) meaning they will never be punished for it.

IT'S WHY HILLARY RAPES CHILDREN AND PARTICIPATES IN PIZZAGATE. PERIOD.
>>
Cedric Hiblingforth - Wed, 25 Jul 2018 17:43:29 EST hbGjJd0p No.74718 Reply
1532555009920.png -(48430B / 47.29KB, 600x700) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>74717
>>Dude you got 8 minutes in...
I'm sorry, I meant to say 8:57...I had no idea you were going to be so anal retentive. I watched your whole video, my previous reply was to the whole video. Do you really think he sells something in the last 57 second that would turn me around?

>> There are TWO paths. Truth and Lie.
Wow no, that's an incredibly simplistic and wrong way to think. The fact that you need to specify catholic, jewish, and muslim means you know there are more than two paths. Everything can be categorized according to it's truth value, which is binary, but merely claiming something is true does not constitute a path. Everyone believes what they are doing is true.

>>(EVEN IF IT'S IN A WAY THAT THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND OR COMPREHEND, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TRAINED IN THE OCCULT/UNSEEN
I'M SORRY SOMETHING IS TRIGGERING YOUR enthusiasm SO BADLY, BUT A BRAIN DEAD FISH COULD FOLLOW YOUR PEDANTIC ARGUMENT, SO APEING OUT IN ALL CAPS REALLY ISN'T HELPING SELL IT. I CAN READ YOUR WEAK POINTS AND ARGUMENTS, THEY ARE JUST DUMB AND I AM REJECTING THEM FOR REASONS I AM EXPLAINING BUT YOU ARE IGNORING.

Look, this guy is trying to misrepresent the lives and activities of real people, some of whom I am personally familiar with. It is slander. You have been directly corrected in those false beliefs by my previous post, but you persist. You are committing slander. You are deliberately spreading lies when you have been told that what you are spreading is lies. By your own definition, you are a member of the Black Sun, because you are choosing to lie even though you now know better. The purpose of this thread was discuss ways to improve the methods of reaching occult truth. Spreading lies about the people conducting this work, obviously with an aim to disrupt it, is utterly anathema to your own professed love for the quest for the truth. There is no place for such thoughtless sabotage in civilized society. Begone from my thread, deceiver.
>>
Fucking Bardcocke - Wed, 25 Jul 2018 18:14:46 EST eyeJsiXl No.74719 Reply
1532556886579.jpg -(49995B / 48.82KB, 612x562) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>74718
>Do you really think he sells something in the last 57 second that would turn me around?
What? NO! I TOLD you he has an entire LECTURE, it's about 6 hours long DUDE. Jesus of course you have no context. Get back to me if you ever check it out. Otherwise we can talk about other stuff.
>some of whom I am personally familiar with. It is slander.
Yea me too. And I say the guy is right. You're committing slander against ME then buttchugger.

Here's the link to the full lecture I mentioned. over 6hrs of knowledge droppin. I don't agree with everything he says but he's closer to the fucking truth than most of the losers who pretend to know what's going on. He's right (IMO, not trying to SLANDER) about the conspiracy of the Black Church, and he's right about "extra dimensional reptilian forces" which DO exist, I do not believe in literal form, like he perhaps does, but they are absolutely real in the human psyche, and I have no idea where the human psyche comes from so for all I know they ARE interdimensional and "real".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEHKDp-RA_8
>>
Cedric Hiblingforth - Wed, 25 Jul 2018 18:34:54 EST hbGjJd0p No.74720 Reply
>>74719
>>! I TOLD you he has an entire LECTURE,
Angry autist, please carefully re-read this entire thread. This is the very first time you referenced a separate lecture. You said there was a lecture. You specified nothing about it's length, and since you linked a video that could be described as a lecture, I along with I'm sure everyone else assumed that is what you meant. I watched the video you linked. If you didn't mean to link that video, that's on you. Nothing in this guys expose shows me that he has anywhere near the critical thinking capacity that would make me want to listen to him drone on for 6 hours.

>> And I say the guy is right.
And I say he's wrong. If you can't explain in your own words why you think he is right, but the only way you can prove he's right is by listening to a 6 hour diatribe, do you really think he is right or were you just worn down by the weight of the words? I linked two much shorter videos to you which should prove that his claim of a global conspiracy is false, did you bother to watch those?

To reiterate, I have never seen any evidence that would make me believe there is some unified 'Black Church' behind various world traditions. I have seen positive evidence which proves to me that such a thing is impossible. This evidence comes in the form of first hand interactions with members of the groups in question, as well as secondary anthropological study of world religious and esoteric traditions. The number of hard facts that would have to be somehow lies in service of a global conspiracy in order for this to be true is staggering, and beyond what I would reasonably entertain as possible. You are the one making the extraordinary claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

Adding in the bit about extra dimensional reptilians does not help sell your case. Human consciousness did not come from extra dimensional reptilians, even in a metaphorical sense. It evolved on earth through darwinistic processes. If our reality emerged from a higher dimension, it had a global effect on the nature of our reality, and thus couldn't be directly responsible for human consciousness...especially not to the point of wanting to dress up like lizards and sneak around behind the scenes of it. Again, this thread is about paranormal phenomena that are on the edge of being rational and provable.

Even if you believe all this stuff, how is it on topic? I don't accept your premises about the nature of occult societies, and such an idea is inherently disruptive to the stated project of turning occultism into a rigorous science. If you can't even accept evidence such as the statements of members of a group about what that group itself does, how will you accept any standard of evidence for coming to a resolution about anything?
>>
Fucking Bardcocke - Wed, 25 Jul 2018 18:36:26 EST eyeJsiXl No.74721 Reply
>>74720
>You might be advanced enough then that you need to hear the lecture in full
I knew from the beginning you were a faggot and my only mistake was not listening to that instinct and being nice and even complimenting you. But you were too much of a swine to even appreciate that. Fuck you.
>>
Cedric Hiblingforth - Wed, 25 Jul 2018 18:49:56 EST hbGjJd0p No.74722 Reply
>>74721
I told you I started to listen to it and then stopped. Then you said 'listen to it in full.' Any reasonable person would assume you meant the thing that you gave me to listen to, not some other thing that only you knew about.

I don't know why I'm bothering with you. You asked for my opinion on a video and I offered it, even offering to help educate you on the matter. You couldn't accept anything about what that opinion was, nor could you give good reasons why. You're exactly the wrong kind of person to be involved in these kinds of studies, as they will always lead you to madness and delusion if you have such poor critical thinking ability. If you had actually tried to have a debate, I would have been glad to. But all you could keep repeating was 'watch my video, oh if you didn't watch my video nothing you say matters. By the way, I didn't even give you the video.' You did everything you could to sabotage this interaction, and so I'm glad you have that attitude. Fuck off.
>>
Fucking Bardcocke - Wed, 25 Jul 2018 18:57:39 EST eyeJsiXl No.74723 Reply
1532559459579.jpg -(94015B / 91.81KB, 682x1024) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>74722
You can kindly go fuck yourself. You have the video NOW, you have access NOW, and your lil' ego still is blocking you from doing a damn thing about that ignorance. Keep thinking you're right and I'm wrong. It's much more comfortable for you to do that than to suck it up and watch the video, within the first 5 minutes of the introduction he will shut you right up and make you realise "Oh man, I was really a pretentious fucking asshole to that guy...no wonder he got so pissed off. Boy gee wiz I am a really unaware knobber."
>>
Cedric Hiblingforth - Wed, 25 Jul 2018 19:43:33 EST hbGjJd0p No.74724 Reply
>>74723
>> within the first 5 minutes of the introduction
I'll take exactly that much of the bet. Watching the first 5 minutes now...
>>
Henry Cennermick - Wed, 25 Jul 2018 20:14:44 EST eyeJsiXl No.74725 Reply
>>74724
That's all it took to get me interested in what the guy had to say. And I'm a skeptic. I don't believe in hooga boogy stuff, I think it's all mostly biological and darwinistic like you do, but I'm open to possibilities. I don't know how the hell I got here, so I'm open to anything.
>>
Caroline Gabbleton - Wed, 25 Jul 2018 20:21:52 EST hbGjJd0p No.74726 Reply
>>74723
For anyone keeping score at home, you should know that he doesn't actually begin to make any substantive comments until about 10 minutes in. So, to be generous, that's where I started marking my 5 minutes. Unfortunately, that also seems to mostly be introductory fluff. Was there some specific time you thought I should get to to make your specific point?

At any rate, there was again nothing in this that would lead me to believe that all occult societies are some unified order and not disparate competing groups like all evidence suggests they are. Obviously I agree with some of these ideas. It would be great if more people were familiar with the Occult. However, I think being taught wrong ideas, like that they are all secretly connected and part of a planetary Mind Control program, rather than being competing modalities for liberating the human mind, is more dangerous than people simply knowing nothing at all.

I'm gonna take a look at his 20 point break down of the meaning of Occult Awakening, as it has a lot more meat than anything he was saying.

>Know the Occult, and understand it has Light and Dark aspects
Know Thyself is perennially good advice, and as I suggested, Occultism has traditionally been divided into right-hand and left-hand categories (that is by no means 'my term' for it, friend. It is an ancient tradition.)

>>Truth is singular and objective.
Disagree completely. Truth is infinite and subjective. Very suspicious of anyone who wants me to believe in one objective truth.

>>Know the True Self and the connection to the All
Nothing to argue with here. Knowing the True Self is the path to the All.

>>Know that neither the Physical nor Spiritual take precedence.
As a complementary monist, I wholly agree. This is a classic occult belief, though.

>>Get out of Ego-Identity and Attachment
Buddha couldn't have said it better himself.

>>Exercise discernment and judgement
As opposed to just being a dumbass? Well if you think it'll work...

>>Being mentally free of False Religions
Ru-roh...what does that mean? And who is exactly the arbiter of what is a 'False Religion?' I'm guessing it's you, Marky?

>>There is no such thing as Knowledge which is 'negative'
Hmm, a little suspicious, but ok...knowledge is generally good, it is only that we can use it for evil...

>>Causal factors have led to the Human Condition
As opposed to acausal factors? Ok, got it...

>>Understand and live in harmony with Natural Law
This is not the purpose of magic. Magic is about harnessing Natural Law and bending it to our own purposes. Sure, if you bend it too much it will break and that's bad, but we in the occult are not to fall into the naturalistic fallacy. Merely because something is does not mean it is good.

>>Know both Pillars of Enlightenment
If he is referring to the Pillars of the Sephiroth, then that is good advice, goes right with the observation that there is a Light and Dark side of the occult...everything has a polar nature.

>>Authority is an illusion, all Government is Slavery
Whu, what? Where did this come from? I'm not going there as it is irrelevant and tangential, but what?

>>Recognize the importance of Free Will
How can Free Will exist if the truth is singular and objective? There is a nuanced metaphysical argument about why these ideas are contradictory to each other, but I won't try to get into it here.

>>Negative emotions serve a purpose.
Def.

>>Enlightenment is not about pursuing bliss
It depends on your definition of enlightenment. For an arhat, it is. For a boddhisattva, it's not. Let's not make absolute claims and we won't have to make so many qualifiers, ok?

>>Know what True Forgiveness means
>>Know the difference between what can and cannot be changed
>>Take real world action to make real world change
All empty truisms that are of course true but say very little.
>>Enlightenment is about influencing others to improve themselves.
I would say that believing you are improving others by influencing them is a classic symptom of the un-enlightened. True enlightenment involves being aware of the sacredness of each person's individual path and choices, and that any influence you have on them is most likely selfish and misguided.

>>Enlightenment isn't perfection
Perfection is a meaningless concept.

At any rate, again, I already acknowledged the guy has a surface level knowledge of a variety of traditions. As far as my research has shown me, he was only ever actually initiated in the Church of Satan, which explains a lot about why he has such wacky ideas. The wackiest is the notion that there is some secret Occult society underpinning all these various traditions. Every bit of evidence I have seen, including subjecting myself to even more of this very boring monologue from this guy, has not changed my belief in that.

Is that good enough for you? Do you actually have a reasoned argument with evidence about why I should change that belief, or are you just going to slowly drag me into watching this whole abomination without ever defending any of the ideas in it?
>>
Henry Cennermick - Wed, 25 Jul 2018 20:23:30 EST eyeJsiXl No.74727 Reply
>>74724
I also admit I was vague and knew that it was my fault you didn't understand what I was saying about the full lecture. That was hard headed of me. It was wrong. I should have just clarified.
>>
Caroline Gabbleton - Wed, 25 Jul 2018 20:24:25 EST hbGjJd0p No.74728 Reply
>>74725
Dude man, I'm already sold on the idea of the Occult. I have been studying it for decades intensively, as a member of various societies. I've been on the ground with the kind of people he's talking about. If you just want to sell me on the idea of the Occult, I'm with you. But trying to get me to believe that these groups are part of a global mind control program is where I will draw the line. I've been on the other side of that veil, and I know it's just a bunch of goofballs trying to figure out the universe while getting dressed up and acting /spooky./ Claiming it is something else leads to things like witch hunts and satanic panics, which is dangerous for anyone who likes the occult even if they aren't satanists. That's what I'm trying to get you to see.
>>
Caroline Gabbleton - Wed, 25 Jul 2018 20:26:01 EST hbGjJd0p No.74729 Reply
1532564761322.jpg -(117103B / 114.36KB, 400x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>74727
Pleased to see that. I was also more acerbic with my remarks than was appropriate. Cheers!
>>
Henry Cennermick - Wed, 25 Jul 2018 20:57:06 EST eyeJsiXl No.74730 Reply
1532566626733.jpg -(88563B / 86.49KB, 500x556) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>74726
>nothing in this that would lead me to believe that all occult societies are some unified order
They're not. There are occult societies that operate outside the order. They are the "good ones". But the majority of the most powerful people in this world, are members of this Dark Order.

>wrong ideas, like that they are all secretly connected and part of a planetary Mind Control program
It's not conscious in the majority of the Dark Order members. It's subconscious. They operate on a predatory basis. Sociopaths rise to the top in society because something has gone very wrong somewhere earlier. I don't know what. I have hypothesis, like that it originated with the concept of deception becoming understood to our species. I could be very wrong. But I have my reasons.

>right-hand and left-hand categories (that is by no means 'my term' for it, friend. It is an ancient tradition.)
I'm well aware, friend.

>Truth is infinite and subjective.
I completely disagree. Truth is objective, as well as subjective. This explains much of our differences. Since this is a very base level belief, that many more higher ones are built upon. The difference in base structure makes big differences later up. Like a ripple in a pond.

>False Religions...what does that mean?
What does anything mean? But I think you know perfectly well, as you alluded to the corrupt status of the world religions known as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam after I brought them up. I think it's clear that christianity as well as the rest have been twisted and manipulated. At their core they have "truth", or "goodness" and those are the good things which are common between all of them. That is the one true religion. That is how a true muslim and a true christian can have true peace, because they are really in the same state of truth. So they can coexist. But you know this. P.s. again it's another duality, they are different but the same. The christian is obviously a christian and the muslim is obviously a muslim, but both when stripped of all that is different, will have at their core the same spirit, The same truth. The same soul, and yet again, still different...until it rejoins the whole, like a drop of water entering a pond.

>Merely because something is does not mean it is good.
I don't think he is speaking to "natural law" in the sense that he is appealing to nature. I don't think he would argue that rape is ok because animals rape. I think he is saying to not fight against the "tao". If you're in a stream, and you are not strong enough to fight the current, should you? You will waste strength...it would be better to go with the flow of life, of nature, and to let the current carry you to shore. Of course there could be no escape, there could be only doom both ahead and behind...but that happens sometimes in life friend, it's called death.

>Whu, what?
Agree. He has a chip on his shoulder about authority and government and it comes out of left field, and he doesn't explain it well. I disagree with him, and think there can be earned authority, and that a libertarian government that has a non aggression principal would be good.

>There is a nuanced metaphysical argument about why these ideas are contradictory to each other, but I won't try to get into it here.
This is one of our fundamental disagreements, so please do.

>It depends on your definition of enlightenment.
Everything depends on your definition of everything. I agree with him. Enlightenment is about illumination, en-light-en-ment. Knowledge. It's not about pleasure. That's a separate issue. It's not not about pleasure. As I said. That's a separate issue. It's about knowledge.

>All empty truisms that are of course true but say very little.
Ok so when a chinese bastard who lived thousands of years ago says it, it's deep and cool. But when beardy longhair says it, it's trite...

>I would say that believing you are improving others by influencing them is a classic symptom of the un-enlightened. True enlightenment involves being aware of the sacredness of each person's individual path and choices, and that any influence you have on them is most likely selfish and misguided.
Agree with all of what you wrote.

>Perfection is a meaningless concept.
Disagree. Strongly. Having an ideal is necessary, even if you don't know what it is you still have it. What is a chair, for example? Is there a perfect chair? A chair that represents all possible and potential chairs? The ideal chair, the perfect chair, could of course only exist in concept alone. And that concept is how you are able to identify any chair that you encounter in the real world, as the thing it is, a chair. The perfect version of anything is the ideal, the concept. The flowing, shifting, geometrically fractal and infinite ethereal soup of "potential things".

>Is that good enough for you?
Yes

>Do you actually have a reasoned argument with evidence about why I should change that belief
Maybe

>are you just going to slowly drag me into watching this whole abomination without ever defending any of the ideas in it?
Kicking and screaming. No. I watched what he had to say and I wouldn't have done that if I wasn't getting something from it. I can admit you may have nothing at all to get from it, and it would be a waste of time and you would sense that and just turn it off. I do that with movies I don't enjoy all the time. Someone once said "Life shouldn't be homework" meaning, if you're watching a movie and not enjoying it, don't suffer through it. Turn it off. Pick something else. Playing a game that sucks, same thing, etc. etc. Of course this rule can be abused to get out of doing hard but worthwhile things, but that's not the concepts fault.
>>
Henry Cennermick - Wed, 25 Jul 2018 20:58:18 EST eyeJsiXl No.74731 Reply
1532566698733.png -(362000B / 353.52KB, 581x581) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>74726
>nothing in this that would lead me to believe that all occult societies are some unified order
They're not. There are occult societies that operate outside the order. They are the "good ones". But the majority of the most powerful people in this world, are members of this Dark Order.

>wrong ideas, like that they are all secretly connected and part of a planetary Mind Control program
It's not conscious in the majority of the Dark Order members. It's subconscious. They operate on a predatory basis. Sociopaths rise to the top in society because something has gone very wrong somewhere earlier. I don't know what. I have hypothesis, like that it originated with the concept of deception becoming understood to our species. I could be very wrong. But I have my reasons.

>right-hand and left-hand categories (that is by no means 'my term' for it, friend. It is an ancient tradition.)
I'm well aware, friend.

>Truth is infinite and subjective.
I completely disagree. Truth is objective, as well as subjective. This explains much of our differences. Since this is a very base level belief, that many more higher ones are built upon. The difference in base structure makes big differences later up. Like a ripple in a pond.

>False Religions...what does that mean?
What does anything mean? But I think you know perfectly well, as you alluded to the corrupt status of the world religions known as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam after I brought them up. I think it's clear that christianity as well as the rest have been twisted and manipulated. At their core they have "truth", or "goodness" and those are the good things which are common between all of them. That is the one true religion. That is how a true muslim and a true christian can have true peace, because they are really in the same state of truth. So they can coexist. But you know this. P.s. again it's another duality, they are different but the same. The christian is obviously a christian and the muslim is obviously a muslim, but both when stripped of all that is different, will have at their core the same spirit, The same truth. The same soul, and yet again, still different...until it rejoins the whole, like a drop of water entering a pond.

>Merely because something is does not mean it is good.
I don't think he is speaking to "natural law" in the sense that he is appealing to nature. I don't think he would argue that rape is ok because animals rape. I think he is saying to not fight against the "tao". If you're in a stream, and you are not strong enough to fight the current, should you? You will waste strength...it would be better to go with the flow of life, of nature, and to let the current carry you to shore. Of course there could be no escape, there could be only doom both ahead and behind...but that happens sometimes in life friend, it's called death.

>Whu, what?
Agree. He has a chip on his shoulder about authority and government and it comes out of left field, and he doesn't explain it well. I disagree with him, and think there can be earned authority, and that a libertarian government that has a non aggression principal would be good.

>There is a nuanced metaphysical argument about why these ideas are contradictory to each other, but I won't try to get into it here.
This is one of our fundamental disagreements, so please do.

>It depends on your definition of enlightenment.
Everything depends on your definition of everything. I agree with him. Enlightenment is about illumination, en-light-en-ment. Knowledge. It's not about pleasure. That's a separate issue. It's not not about pleasure. As I said. That's a separate issue. It's about knowledge.

>All empty truisms that are of course true but say very little.
Ok so when a chinese bastard who lived thousands of years ago says it, it's deep and cool. But when beardy longhair says it, it's trite...

>I would say that believing you are improving others by influencing them is a classic symptom of the un-enlightened. True enlightenment involves being aware of the sacredness of each person's individual path and choices, and that any influence you have on them is most likely selfish and misguided.
Agree with all of what you wrote.

>Perfection is a meaningless concept.
Disagree. Strongly. Having an ideal is necessary, even if you don't know what it is you still have it. What is a chair, for example? Is there a perfect chair? A chair that represents all possible and potential chairs? The ideal chair, the perfect chair, could of course only exist in concept alone. And that concept is how you are able to identify any chair that you encounter in the real world, as the thing it is, a chair. The perfect version of anything is the ideal, the concept. The flowing, shifting, geometrically fractal and infinite ethereal soup of "potential things".

>Is that good enough for you?
Yes

>Do you actually have a reasoned argument with evidence about why I should change that belief
Maybe

>are you just going to slowly drag me into watching this whole abomination without ever defending any of the ideas in it?
Kicking and screaming. No. I watched what he had to say and I wouldn't have done that if I wasn't getting something from it. I can admit you may have nothing at all to get from it, and it would be a waste of time and you would sense that and just turn it off. I do that with movies I don't enjoy all the time. Someone once said "Life shouldn't be homework" meaning, if you're watching a movie and not enjoying it, don't suffer through it. Turn it off. Pick something else. Playing a game that sucks, same thing, etc. etc. Of course this rule can be abused to get out of doing hard but worthwhile things, but that's not the concepts fault.
>>
Henry Cennermick - Wed, 25 Jul 2018 20:59:16 EST eyeJsiXl No.74732 Reply
>>74730
Sorry for doublepost it told me my post didn't go through the first time so I just clicked back and posted with a new image in case that was why.
>>
Caroline Gabbleton - Wed, 25 Jul 2018 22:22:49 EST hbGjJd0p No.74733 Reply
1532571769322.jpg -(14808B / 14.46KB, 220x188) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>74730
Glad we could return the discussion to a civilized footing (just as much my fault.) Restores my faith in humanity by .02%. Will try to be as prosaic with my replies as possible.

>>But the majority of the most powerful people in this world, are members of this Dark Order
Ok, granted, but I think they, numerically, are a very small percentage of the total membership of occult societies worldwide, so it's useful to try to distinguish them in terminology. For an analogy, nowadays polite people try to make a distinction between consensual BDSM practice and spousal abuse. Yes, on the surface sometimes they take similar forms, but because the intent of the people involved is totally different, it's important to specify. FWIW, within the chatter of groups who some people claim to be part of the 'Illuminati Mind Control' program, they of course have their own internal speculation and terms for who this 'mysterious secret cabal' that controls world affairs that all are aware of, but have their own understanding of. So, this is kind of a semantic thing but it has real world consequences. I can understand why, if you learned a lot about the occult from this guy's videos, you might not necessarily see that, as there are unique things about CoS (which is apparently where this guy got his background) that might lead him, after getting out of it, to be unaware of the kind of connection he was making or how more 'traditional' occultists would instinctively take it. I'll admit that the way he opened in that other video instinctively put me on a hostile footing to his ideas, simply because I knew he was including some groups that definitely shouldn't be included in a 'secret mysterious cabal' concept. If he had just tried to sell me on the idea that there was such a thing under some name or heading, I would of course accept. I think, personally, it is of cabal of a more financial than mystical nature.

>>It's subconscious. They operate on a predatory basis.
Ok, I grant that phenomena like this happen. To me, this is a manifestation of the panpsychic forces of the id. It's not some 'Dark Order' pulling the strings of these subconcious members, it really is the tendencies of the Dark Gods which rest eternally, along with the Light, in the human soul. Humans are the best at projecting their id, and we even cooperate to do it, but I don't know (or necessarily believe) that even at the highest level there is true cooperation...only a 'devil's' sort of cooperation, in that their own selfishness is their own undoing, which is in the general service of evil.

>>The difference in base structure makes big differences later up. Like a ripple in a pond.
Indeed, but
>>What does anything mean?
My statement about the varieties of Truth could be taken in a lot of different ways. That, in and of itself, almost illustrates my point. What is 'true' is what is true for a given set of axioms, for a theory, in a world, under a hypothesis. Is there an objective world? Perhaps, and I would even say yes. But our points of knowing it are eternally feeble and dim. I think the concept of a truth or truths are exclusive to a mind at least, and a community of minds at most. I do not think it is a property of objective reality...but this is a highly nuanced discussion of metaphysics. Nonetheless, I believe the empirical method is one of the few instruments we have of accessing whatever is objective (but I would argue whatever comes back, though it may be shared, is still a subjectivity, but this is really a semantic thing) and that magic, occultism, as the original science, the one concerned with rightly orienting humanity and the self in relation with the universe, is really the only other. With one eye we can see, with the other we can change. Once we change what we see, what we see is ourselves. This is our condition.

>>the contradiction between objective truth and free will
Again, all this depends on what you mean by these terms. Under one treatment, if there is an objective truth in the strict sense, such that all mental phenomena are completely corresponding to a discrete set of physical phenomena, which themselves unfold in a deterministic sense according to the laws of physics, then if you knew all this information at once (as in the mind of God, and ignoring things about the Uncertainty principle etc. for now) you could know both the ending and the beginning of the universe. This is where one got philosophies like Deism. If this is so, then there cannot be free will, all choices are determined.
Without belaboring a bunch of stuff I'm sure you already know, one possible solution that has been put forth and is a popular hypothesis in occult circles (and others but perhaps in different terms) is that the seeming paradox between determinism and free will is an illusion of our level of consciousness (literally of the 3dness of our brains in tension with the 4dness of our minds.) That both the Everett and Copenhagen interpretations of quantum mechanics are true but in a different sense; by perceiving reality we alter it, shifting it down different possible worldlines; but every part of reality is an observer, therefore panpsychism, and thus panentheism, is also to some degree true. So truth is infinite -- every possible explanation is the case in some universe. But it is also subjective -- what it ends up being is determined entirely by the sum observations of all the entities (whatsoever) in a specific worldline. I know that covers a lot of ground, and I agree it is a hypothesis open to criticism, but it is what I operate under which is why, again, I instinctively recoil from claims of 'One Truth.'

>>Enlightenment is about illumination
Ah, I should clarify. I don't really mean that it's not about illumination. What I'm trying to imply by bringing up different kinds of buddhas from Buddhist doctrine is; is enlightenment something that really can come from without, or does it have to come from within? Is the most you can do try to foster the conditions for enlightenment, because if you actually try to put it in someone else, you often end up deceiving both them and yourself?

>>But when beardy longhair says it, it's trite...
Well, to be honest, it was trite when the old Chinese bastard said it too. Truisms are a kind of rhetorical tactic and honestly a type of filler. As I've admitted I had a critical eye to his stuff, I mean, there's nothing wrong with saying it and for this crowd it's probably very helpful to point out, but I'm just saying he's not saying anything that's not also included in the doctrines of every other group he mentions, or at least based on that outline it seemed so. The time a truism is useful is before it is seen as a truism, when it is still seen as some kind of paradox. Sometimes solo speakers like him can have true insights about different systems and how they connect that are really exciting, and that's what I was kinda hoping for. But it is by no means wrong.

>>Having an ideal is necessary, even if you don't know what it is you still have it.
Sure, I agree with what you say here. But while it may be important for your ideals to be perfect, that comes with an equally strong responsibility to know that the real world can never be perfect or match that ideal, no matter how much you change it (even though, both blessedly and insidiously, as you try to it will over time get closer and closer...but that's a separate problem.)

>>the rest
I'm sure people who would like a general intro to a variety of occult worldviews could enjoy this video a lot more, but I would caution them to take what he says, especially if he posits certain connections between them, with a grain of salt. If you have some specific parts you'd like me to check out, I'm game, but yeah, otherwise, I get where he's coming from but if I saw him in person I would have a few words with him about some of his phrasing.

Anyway, SLAYER
>>
Sophie Gengerdale - Mon, 30 Jul 2018 10:05:14 EST +DEfOrl0 No.74738 Reply
1532959514725.jpg -(176201B / 172.07KB, 360x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>74693
If you like enochian stuff you should listen to dvar.
>>
Wesley Dorringham - Thu, 09 Aug 2018 12:33:14 EST JVvU11g+ No.74761 Reply
1533832394918.png -(16185B / 15.81KB, 330x393) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Scientific method was actually "invented" by the hermetists, so it definitely should always be kept in your metaphysical tool belt for sure.
>>
Lillian Nicklespear - Thu, 09 Aug 2018 20:28:15 EST hbGjJd0p No.74762 Reply
>>74761
A truth often forgotten. Who do you think is more responsible for creating the division between metaphysics and the rest of the sciences though?
>>
Lydia Hommerhood - Fri, 10 Aug 2018 14:10:33 EST 4Ezaztks No.74763 Reply
1533924633914.jpg -(68721B / 67.11KB, 450x450) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>74762
>Who do you think is more responsible for creating the division between metaphysics and the rest of the sciences though?
Obama.

Serious answer: I dont blame any person or group, it seems to be more of a rule than exception that people seem to expand and move away from truth, like all matter does with center of the universe. All the religions etc are these different branches from the original truth, each of them as far away from the truth as their competitor - all of them have small pieces of the truth without the big picture because they refuse to combine their pieces together. Science and occultism are also just two branches in that clusterfuck. We are so narrow minded that we only try to grasp the truth from one specific and very narrow angle, while being completely blind to all the other angles and dimensions that the truth has.
English is not my first language, so in case my ramblings are incomprehensible, my point is explained much more eloquently in this ancient poem/parable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
Wicca and other ritual magicks usually instruct to have a mirror on your ritual altar. That mirror represents introspect, and its one of the most important things to practice. We must never forget that our own mind is flawed and even actively attempting to fool us at every corner. Thats why theres a mirror on the magick altar, so you remember to keep an eye on yourself at all times. To remember not to jump in any bandwagons, because bandwagons always travels away from the truth, not towards it.
>>
Lillian Nicklespear - Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:11:35 EST hbGjJd0p No.74764 Reply
>>74763
>> I dont blame any person or group, it seems to be more of a rule than exception that people seem to expand and move away from truth,
While it is true that truth is always elusive, hard to hold onto, and easy to drive away, I think there is one group clearly responsible for the particular divide between the occult and sciences. That would be the monotheistic religions, particularly Christianity:

Remember, in the ancient world, almost all cultures were some form of polytheistic pagans. This has several advantages; for one, by having multiple gods, there was no need for insane religious wars -- if you conquered a new people, you could bring your gods, and they could keep theirs, and you could squint your eyes and say they were the same thing.

Also, the pagan gods are much more like the forces of nature than the Abrahamic god. In fact, the Egyptian word for god 'netcheru' is literally where we get the word 'nature.' By sharing their understanding of individual forces in the gods, and sharing these between cultures, along with an understanding of occult rituals that were alternatively proto-chemistry or proto-psychology, the ancient pagans' religion was actually much closer to its own scientific revolution than we commonly imagine. Remember, the steam engine was invented by a Greek dude in the 1st century. If the dark ages hadn't soon brought an end to the ancient world, we could have had both the scientific and industrial revolutions over a thousand years ago.

Anyway, because the monotheists set up this strong division between the material and the spiritual (whereas to pagans the material and spiritual are on in the same) they were setting themselves up for a fatal collision with science when it inevitably re-emerged. The scientists, though, having lost the education on how all this really went down, began to understand all religions and spiritual notions as their enemy -- they had acquired the dogmatic quality of the monotheists in being the ones who supplanted them.

Anyway, that is just an opinion quite more open to critique than a hypothesis or a theoretical claim, but I still feel like it best explains the facts.
>>
William Claywater - Fri, 10 Aug 2018 21:28:18 EST DMp65zrW No.74767 Reply
1533950898160.jpg -(106546B / 104.05KB, 418x627) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>74764
>I think there is one group clearly responsible for the particular divide between the occult and sciences. That would be the monotheistic religions, particularly Christianity
I'd say you say that because you live in christianity-dominated culture. My experience from south-east-asia is that even Buddhism is nowdays branched in to bunch of different superstitious groups that are very far from what I consider to be the core of Siddharta Gautama's teachings. So once again, its happening everywhere and christianity is more of an effect than a cause.
>in the ancient world, almost all cultures were some form of polytheistic pagans
I might be nitpicking, but more specificly they believed in animism, that everything has a soul. If they werent monists, then they at least were singularists. There were still fights over resources and so on, so its not like everyone was living in peace and happiness even then. After all, the progress from their times leads to our times, so they werent doing a perfect job at some point.
>Egyptian word for god 'netcheru' is literally where we get the word 'nature.
Yeah, Finnish word for nature 'luonto' originally meant soul or some kind of transcendent energy; I figure the same applies for the word 'nature', because in germanic languages people still use the word 'nature' meaning someones personality; "Susan is very good-natured person". Same thing with finnish 'luonto'-word, even though the language origin is way different than your word. It is fascinating and I do admire the ancient pagan cultures in a way.
>If the dark ages hadn't soon brought an end to the ancient world, we could have had both the scientific and industrial revolutions over a thousand years ago.
Of course, Im just not convinced that dark age would have been avoided by simply removing judeo-christianity out of the equation. Mind you that jews did not invent monotheism, there was already a "war between gods" in the times of Gilgamesh - and other gods' existence are even acknowledged in the old testament, so in a way jews arent or werent monotheist, they believed in many gods but chose to stand by one during - or leading to - a war. if Yahweh had vanished then problably some other god would have taken over. Even in rome their gods began a war and different roman cults were fighting with each other, thats why jews gained so much power, there were small civil wars and some cults were ready to team up with jews to purge the competing cults and one after another they died off. Jews got to keep private armies and had almost fully autonomous control of certain parts of Rome in it's later years. But without judaism and their god, would all have gone great and along the polytheist path, or would another god have risen to purge other gods?
>Anyway, that is just an opinion quite more open to critique than a hypothesis or a theoretical claim, but I still feel like it best explains the facts.
I agree with what you are saying as in, thats how our timeline went, yes. But there were many other monotheist religions as well, before yahwe's cult destroyed most of them. In my opinion we do not have enough information to conclude that Yahwe and his followers are the sole reason of Dark Age and the problems resulting from it. It is however completely justified to point out that in our timeline judeo-christian religion has had a huge negative impact and keeps harming us and hindering our progress. However there are other religions and political movements etc. that do the same thing independent from judeo-christianism. Does that not suggest that the problem we are facing is larger than just the judeo-christianity?

Anyway, one thing to me seems certain: If there is a being that the judeo-christians call god or YHWH, it's clearly not a benevolent being.
>>
Ebenezer Sommerchune - Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:15:57 EST hbGjJd0p No.74795 Reply
>>74767
>>very far from what I consider to be the core of Siddharta Gautama
Well I am quite familiar with how far from the Buddha's teaching most of what is called Buddhism is, but the same is true for Islam or Christianity, all religions undergo this process whereby the core teaching is gradually distorted. But my reason for singling out Christianity over others is simply that western society came to dominate the global culture, and particular global attitudes on science and technology, which were then adopted or forced on the rest of the world through globalism/colonialism. Yes, you could go one step deeper and say that this subversion is really at fault rather than any one particular case where the subversion happened, but I'm trying to point out what I see as the weakest link in the chain. There are several critically weak links, for sure.

>> they believed in animism
This is inaccurate, on what do you base this? Animism was practiced, sure, but it was by no means the universal condition of polytheistic paganism. Animism was a more dominant characteristic in the archaic, prehistorical religions, but we have an understanding of how those beliefs had transformed into classical polytheism by about 6000 years ago (incidentally largely coinciding with agriculture, like most things.)

>> not like everyone was living in peace and happiness even then. After all, the progress from their times leads to our times
Of course, there is going to be conflict. Nothing is ever peace and harmony. We have science now, and still have conflict. My point wasn't that they might have had peace, it was that they might have had science. And they were closer to it than people were for almost a thousand years after, and specific things happened to change that. I think that's a fact worth noting, don't you?

>> Mind you that jews did not invent monotheism, there was already a "war between gods" in the times of Gilgamesh
Almost all polytheisms feature conflict of some kind between the gods. The Sumerians were polytheists. Are you saying polytheists are basically monotheists? (The first monotheist, as far as we know, was of course the Egyptian Ankhenaten.)

>>if Yahweh had vanished some other god would have taken over
But why did it have to be one god? In the roman conflicts over the ascendancy of different cults, they never got to the point of completely eradicating the believers of one god or another. It was that attitude of 'only one god, all else must be destroyed' that upended the delicate balance that was fostering the proto-science of ancient pagan magic.

>> some cults were ready to team up with jews to purge the competing cults
When? Sources. As far as I know, nothing like this ever happened. The closest it came before Christianity was in the case of Mithraism and perhaps the cult of Sol Invictus, which were proto-Christianity and a pagan response to Christianity alternatively. And again, the level of violence was nothing compared to what came later.

What causes dark ages is a loss of knowledge and an environment where gaining knowledge and learning are held in hostility. The pagans did not have this attitude, the monotheists (not even all of them, but particular subsets of them) did have this attitude, forced it on a part of the world, which went on to introduce that influence to the rest of the world. This is a meaningful thing, and sure, it is a subset of cosmically bigger forces, but if we can't call a part of a problem a problem, then we can't do anything.

Yes, another god could have taken Yahweh's place, and probably would have, but we're not talking counterfactuals, but history. What did happen is that Yahweh's followers did this and continue to be one of the most significant things holding back this progress. That's worth calling out.

Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.