surreptitious57 wrote:Well if everybody is doing it then it may be because it is worded rather ambiguously

Having read it again I can see what you meant but it is not as obvious as it should be

There's nothing ambiguous about it. I specifically said that NOMA was a tacit admission that belief in a deity and a true scientific mindset are fundamentally incompatible. It was exactly as obvious as it should be.

The reason everybody is doing it is because accommodationism's the thing. I have no truck with accommodating bullshit.

I wonder whether you might care to address the points made in this post a few pages ago?

chairman bill wrote:

savithru wrote:Irrespective of whether it produces actual effects or not Theurgy is not science and cannot be studied through the scientific method. The understanding of Theurgy among westerners truly sucks.

Tell that to ceremonial magicians. But the point is, it either produces an effect, or it does not. If it does not, it's by definition achieving nothing. If it does, those effects are measurable or they are nothing. If they are measurable, they are subject to scientific scrutiny.

"Theurgic union is attained only by the perfective operation of unspeakable acts correctly performed, acts which are beyond all understanding, and by the power of unutterable symbols which are intelligible only to the Gods"

Iamblichus, De Mysteriis. 2,11

So acts that are beyond all understanding, yet you complain that the understanding of theurgy among westerners is lacking. Shome mishtake, shurely.

Unspeakable acts - what are they? Oh, sorry, my mistake, they're unspeakable so you can't tell me. But people need to perform them perfectly. Acts that no one would understand, and the use of unutterable symbols; what are those symbols? Oh that's right, you can't say. What a fucking joke.

savithru wrote:

Nicko wrote:

savithru wrote:Irrespective of whether it produces actual effects or not Theurgy is not science and cannot be studied through the scientific method.

Why not?

God cannot be falsifiable in the scientific sense. Its the wisdom of Kant, God is purely a metaphysical concept and hence lies outside the domain of science. I find it absolutely stupid when atheists demand evidence for God from a peer-reviewed Scientific Journal. There will never ever be scientific evidence for God.

Are you not aware that spouting assertions is not the same as explaining?

If God is "purely a metaphysical concept" then God is nothing but a concept, nothing but an idea, a figment of the imagination. If you say so.
Who mentioned peer-reviewed scientific journals? Okay, so you assert that there is not enough evidence to support claims of the existence of gods reliably enough to satisfy scientific rigor. So much the worse for those who claim such entities exist then. But why do you (and many like you) keep on insisting that god claims are unfalsifiable and that there will never be scientific evidence for them, without bothering to show how you have come to that conclusion? Without showing such "working" why should I take your word for this any more than for those in the past who have claimed that there would never be any "scientific" explanation for lightening etc.?

savithru wrote:Even if Theurgists practice Theurgy and demonstrate human teleportation, precognition (Oracles) and other empirical effects it can never ever be evidence for any God because the experience of God is always subjective and never objective. We can never know whether they got that knowledge from some divine spirit or from some tooth fairy and hence any distortions in reality caused by Theurgists cannot be evidence for the existence of any gods.

What nonsense. Demonstrating those things (teleportation, precognition etc.) would be a start, wouldn't it? What excuses do you have for that? At least you could claim that those known to be real effects are due to the existence of gods, which it at least a little better than claiming that those effects are real, without evidence, and that they are due to the existence of gods.

savithru wrote:Theurgists cannot show gods directly to other human beings for it is the nature of gods to exist and influence human beings by being outside of human sight.

Empty assertion about the nature of gods that you have made no effort to justify. Worthless. And who insisted anything about "directly"? This is the same tired old talk apologists bring out as emptily asserted excuses for their inability to provide a shred of evidence for their ludicrous claims.

savithru wrote:So the only way to see gods is to repeat the method performed by the Theurgist and that demands one to have prior belief in the existence of gods before even testing them and this is against the spirit of science. So Theurgy cannot be a scientific discipline.

So it is worthless then. Anything that requires (or so you assert) prior belief is just begging for confirmation bias and people seeing what they want to see whether it actually appeared or not. If no-one (which you are clearly implying here) has ever seen any personal evidence for the existence of these things without first believing in them then this suggests that their experiences were nothing but an interpretation (delusion) based on those beliefs.

savithru wrote:Even Arthur Versluis agrees with me.

“While I am convinced of the critical importance of historiography in the study of esotericism (and for this reason all of my academic books are firmly grounded in historical method) I do not believe that historiography is adequate in itself to convey the complex, multivalent nature of esoteric thought, traditions, or most of all, experience. Esotericism, given all its varied forms and its inherently multidimensional nature, cannot be conveyed without going beyond purely historical information: at minimum, the study of esotericism, and in particular mysticism, requires some degree of imaginative participation in what one is studying.”

- Arthur Versluis, Methods in the study of Esotericism.

Why should anyone care? What he says, like you have, really amounts to anything better than "you won't know the truth of our cult unless you go through our indoctrination/brainwashing techniques first." If I were convinced in the existence of alien lizard men in disguise living on Earth then I bet I could see all kinds of stuff I would consider 'evidence' for them as well. That's how conformation bias and indoctrinated belief works after all.

It does rather offer a neat and tidy explanation for why none of you can demonstrate the validity of what you claim to know though.

savithru wrote:That's why the pagan culture or more importantly a Theurgist never forcefully proselyte others. So God by definition is not falsifiable. For example even quarks do not have direct evidence for their existence but we know that they exist indirectly through a process known as bremsstrahlung and anyone can repeat the experiment and confirm their existence, no prior belief in quarks is required but in the case of gods belief in them is a must before one can see them. Gospel of Philip says "no one can receive gnosis without faith". This is esotericism and it can never ever be scientific and never secular. Scientific method is not viable for the study of gods. Even Kant agrees with this.

So basically no person who at all values reason should believe in such nonsense then, right?
And you would be well advised to drop this game of appealing to authority like that. You really aren't very good at it. None of us care who agrees or disagrees with you, all that matters is why, their reasoning and arguments.

savithru wrote:

"Theurgic union is attained only by the perfective operation of unspeakable acts correctly performed, acts which are beyond all understanding, and by the power of unutterable symbols which are intelligible only to the Gods"

Iamblichus, De Mysteriis. 2,11

If you are defining something as "beyond all understanding", you do realise that logically includes your understanding as well?

Yes as an initiate or a novice into Theurgy it is beyond all understanding but as an expert after years of practice its not beyond all understanding.

So you are saying that Iamblichus, who you quoted, was wrong. Make up your mind.

savithru wrote:

ADParker wrote:

savithru wrote:Irrespective of whether it produces actual effects or not Theurgy is not science and cannot be studied through the scientific method. The understanding of Theurgy among westerners truly sucks.

Why do so many repeatedly say shit like that; "Theurgy is not science", as if that makes it immune to scientific examination? Gravity, germs and evolution aren't science either. Science is the rational critical examination of observed things like them.

If theurgy produces actual effects then that can be scientifically examined. If it doesn't produce actual effects then it is indistinguishable from the nonexistent.

Theurgy doesn't deal with the observed universe and hence it is not a scientific discipline. Just because some fucking ignorant people doesn't know how theurgy works it is not my problem.

Calm down.
And an important distinction is: I don't know (exactly) how my computer works either, but at least I know that it does work. I don't even know that about theurgy.

Thanks for once again for basically ignoring what I said in direct response to you, and just ranting about something else instead.

Do you have any evidence that theurgy deals with something other than the observed universe? Or is this just yet another empty assertion from you?

savithru wrote:

savithru wrote:We don't give a damn fuck about what science says.

You do go on about it when you think you can twist it to sound like it might agree with you though, if even just a little.

But why should we give a damn fuck about what you say? At least science offers demonstrable results.

Because agnostic atheism and materialism is a fundamentally flawed position to hold on to. As John eccles says "promissary materialism", enough for the secular ones to keep the world in ignorance and have full control over others. You can't hide your position anywhere.

That makes absolutely no sense in the context of what I posted. You just slapped "Because" in front of an unrelated empty assertion. Did you think I wouldn't notice and would be fooled into thinking that you actually answered my question? You don't even seem to grasp what "atheism" means.

savithru wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

savithru wrote:*God cannot be falsifiable in the scientific sense.

Then it's worthless.

Not for theurgists. No one asked scientists to be theurgists, its a non-overlapping magisterium.

Fucking NOMA.

But okay: Science's magisterium is reality... therefore theurgy's is not.

savithru wrote:I have a plan to read Kant's critique of Pure Reason to understand his full arguments, that's one of the methodology how I have arrived and the other is by studying all the mystical traditions of the world and from the works of religious scholars.

One methodology for how you have arrived is that you plan to read a book?! That makes no sense. But of course you have already demonstrated that you don't get what "ways of knowing" means; with your nonsense of asserting that "the 12 steps" and the bible are "ways of knowing".

savithru wrote:I never forced anyone to be a theurgist, you can continue to be an atheist but know that your position is a fundamentally flawed one because all evidence from science and religion is showing that the numinous exist.

Oooh; "all evidence"! None of which you seem at all capable of presenting. Interesting.

I could just as easily assert that all evidence from science and religion is showing that I am really a sentient cheeseburger.

savithru wrote:Bullshit, shouldn't I cite evidence to support my position?

That would be nice, yes.
Your pointless appeals to authority are nothing like evidence.;p=

savithru wrote:
There are many theories competing to explain human consciousness, for example - Penrose Orch-OR model is one, we theurgists have our own theory and we know better than neuroscience.

Nice display of hubris there.

If you really did know better then you could demonstrate that you know better. You have not, so there is no reason for anyone to believe your assertions to know. and I don't believe you have a theory, or even grasp what a theory actually entails.

savithru wrote:I am convinced that my Neo-platonic religion is absolutely right and your campaign to demolish it is at best asinine.

No need to demolish that which has not been justified. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I for one are not trying to "demolish" your claims (why bother?) I'm simply stating that I don't buy your empty assertions, and see no reason why anyone should.

Anyway; none of us just came along to demolish your "Neo-platonic religion"; you were the one that effectively came to us making claims about it. Meaning that what you are trying to do here is shift the burden of proof onto those not accepting your claims. A rather shitty and dishonest tactic to be perfectly honest with you.

savithru wrote:
Because agnostic atheism and materialism is a fundamentally flawed position to hold on to

I will stop being an agnostic atheist if you can provide evidence for the existence of God

I am not a materialist because not everything is explicitly physical [ consciousness for example ]

If telekinesis, teleportation, et al is destined along the path of human evolution it will be solely of human origin with no magical mystery or arcane practise with respect to 'gods' involved. No pagan mystery religion will ever 'trigger' evolution to produce these phenomena if the human brain is not 'ready' however much 'deep thought' is involved.

To suggest that such 'deep thought' will produce this phenomena is wishful thinking and utter nonsrnse. It has never happened in the past and there is no way that anyone in the present can demonstrate this alleged phenomena. To claim so would be nothing less than charlatanism which would be easily exposed in todays climate of rational thinking and investigative purpose.

To claim that these phenomena existed in the distant past and that ancient writings 'proved it' just indicates that a 'climate of rational thinking and investigative purpose' was not part of the general populations' way of life at that time.

savithru wrote:So the only way to see gods is to repeat the method performed by the Theurgist and that demands one to have prior belief in the existence of gods before even testing them and this is against the spirit of science. So Theurgy cannot be a scientific discipline.

Back to this again (my emphasizing):
Anything like that is not only non scientific; it is non rational, irrational.

Any organization, belief system, cult, religion etc. that claims that one must believe first and only then will they receive reasons to believe...is a scam, a con.

ADParker wrote:Any organization, belief system, cult, religion etc. that claims that one must believe first and only then will they receive reasons to believe...is a scam, a con.

Amen, brother!

This thread was amusing when it started.

ADParker wrote:... Any organization, belief system, cult, religion etc. that claims that one must believe first and only then will they receive reasons to believe...is a scam, a con.

Ah, but if you would only just believe, then you'd believe, see? And that means you'd appreciate the proof that you were right. Not believing is what is stopping you from believing. Stupid atheist. Just believe, do a ritual thingamajig, and you'll believe it worked simply because you already believe. Not believing and thus failing to believe, is just proof of your own confirmation bias.

ADParker wrote:
Are you not aware that spouting assertions is not the same as explaining?

If God is "purely a metaphysical concept" then God is nothing but a concept, nothing but an idea, a figment of the imagination. If you say so.
Who mentioned peer-reviewed scientific journals? Okay, so you assert that there is not enough evidence to support claims of the existence of gods reliably enough to satisfy scientific rigor. So much the worse for those who claim such entities exist then. But why do you (and many like you) keep on insisting that god claims are unfalsifiable and that there will never be scientific evidence for them, without bothering to show how you have come to that conclusion? Without showing such "working" why should I take your word for this any more than for those in the past who have claimed that there would never be any "scientific" explanation for lightening etc.?

Mysticism is a rational enterprise where as Esotericism is a supra-rational enterprise. Its wrong to think that we have arrived at this conclusion just by wishful thinking.

1. Neural physio-chemical processes does not produce conscious experiences.

2. Mind creates a Veil around the external objective world by synchronizing the appearances and our thought processes precisely so much so that we suspend our disbelief and makes us believe that we are in this empirical reality. The external physical world is forever impossible to know. (Kant)

3. Mind creates all the laws of physics, it creates all the categories, it creates relations between objects existing in the external physical world, causality, flow of time, and the three dimensional space. (Kant)

4. When I go to sleep this empirical universe ceases to exist although the external physical world continue to exist and when I wake up the external physical world and the mind creates a Veil which we call the empirical reality. Mental states do not correspond to brain states.

5. "Our perceiving self is no where to be found with in this world picture because it itself is the world picture" (Erwin Schrodinger). Neuroscientists cannot pin down consciousness because it is not an emergent phenomena of the brain, its like being in an immersive virtual reality and trying to explain a phenomena which originates outside of it.

6. The real neuroscience is from the east where nadis or channels carry the flow of consciousness in the subtle body and that's how we have dual awareness as thinking beings and also as extended beings having a body of our own.

7. There are rooms in the subtle body for the gods to dwell and they control your free will and all other activities of the body. That's how the intention to do something arises. Its the gods who stimulate the brain in the subtle body and fools human beings into believing that they act on their own will.

8. Cognition happens in the intellect and that's how the mind accesses mathematical truths from the intellect existing in the platonic realm. Mathematical understanding and other creative arts of human beings is definitely non-computable. There is no invention, its all discovery.

9. Some might say changing brain chemistry affects consciousness but everything is a veil, what you change here affects the subtle body and that's how it affects consciousness.

The world what we are seeing is a mere shadow copy of the real pleromic world that's out there. Gods are in the microcosm as well as in the macrocosm. This is how Indian and Chinese medicine work, this is how by invoking the gods we can make you deaf or dumb and bring rain in places where there is drought and do other unbelievable things. The western academic world has to come to terms with a set of pagan ideas.



Taoism - Inner deities.

What nonsense. Demonstrating those things (teleportation, precognition etc.) would be a start, wouldn't it?

Sure, it would be a great start. I never said there will be no evidence for Theurgy.

What excuses do you have for that?

What fucking excuse do these neuroscientists and strong AI community have for not explaining and simulating consciousness They take all the funding, infrastructure, expensive machinery, human resource etc. Compare this to Esotericism how many people do you think go after the pagan mystery schools, how much investigation has been done on them, how many of them have investigated it from their own milieu? Who studies systematic practice of Thuergy? What are its results? Does it work or not? I know it works, the aim of theurgic union should not be to demonstrate these powers but to return to fullness, then no power in this world can stand before you.

So it is worthless then. Anything that requires (or so you assert) prior belief is just begging for confirmation bias and people seeing what they want to see whether it actually appeared or not. If no-one (which you are clearly implying here) has ever seen any personal evidence for the existence of these things without first believing in them then this suggests that their experiences were nothing but an interpretation (delusion) based on those beliefs.

How is this not confirmation bias? The reductionist approach to Esotericism will never do any justice to that field, the truth will be hidden from our eyes forever.

Why should anyone care? What he says, like you have, really amounts to anything better than "you won't know the truth of our cult unless you go through our indoctrination/brainwashing techniques first." If I were convinced in the existence of alien lizard men in disguise living on Earth then I bet I could see all kinds of stuff I would consider 'evidence' for them as well. That's how conformation bias and indoctrinated belief works after all.

It does rather offer a neat and tidy explanation for why none of you can demonstrate the validity of what you claim to know though.

We cannot demonstrate it because the traditions of Neo-platonic Christianity, Neoplatonism, Mithras Lithurgy etc have died, only those inside the traditions knew the meaning behind those rituals. Ours is the only esoteric tradition which is alive with all the rituals intact and with knowledge of how to correctly perform them. That's why I am confident that I can show evidence for the working of Theurgy.

So basically no person who at all values reason should believe in such nonsense then, right?

That's why I said theurgy cannot be a scientific discipline but one need not have to approach it with blind faith losing all their sanity.

And you would be well advised to drop this game of appealing to authority like that. You really aren't very good at it. None of us care who agrees or disagrees with you, all that matters is why, their reasoning and arguments.

I have given my reasoning and have been doing through out this thread.

So you are saying that Iamblichus, who you quoted, was wrong. Make up your mind.

Iamblichus is absolutely right, theurgy is suprarational, beyond all understanding, the only way to know it is to experience it yourself. I have already made up my mind.

hackenslash wrote:

savithru wrote:You don't know any better and contrary to what you think I have read many things, not just some fucking Philosophical book.

Since you don't allow other ways of thinking with your fucked up scientific mindset care to explain these papers since you are an expert in human thinking.

Is Thinking Computable?
Is Consciousness Computable? Quantifying Integrated Information Using Algorithmic Information Theory
The Brain is not computable

There are many theories competing to explain human consciousness, for example - Penrose Orch-OR model is one, we theurgists have our own theory and we know better than neuroscience. I am convinced that my Neo-platonic religion is absolutely right and your campaign to demolish it is at best asinine.

You are convinced, but far from convincing, not least because all you have is the same argumentum ad verecundiam. Your entire presentation is rooted in fallacy, and you have no answer to the objections raised. Why should I bother to do your homework for you?

And that's entirely aside from the fact that I think you're a former member having a troll.

That's the best you could do? That's it? When my position is a reasonable one I really don't have to care for any such accusations.

savithru wrote:When my position is a reasonable one I really don't have to care for any such accusations.

Clinging to an ideology without a shred of evidence to support it is not a reasonable position.
Telling people who choose not to blindly accept assertions that are somehow being unreasonable, is not a reasonable position to hold.
Citing that the existence of deities cannot be subject to scientific, evidence based scrutiny, through special pleading, is not a reasonable position to hold.

savithru wrote:That's the best you could do? That's it? When my position is a reasonable one I really don't have to care for any such accusations.

What more do you think I should do, given that valid objectons have been raised to which you have no answer?

chairman bill wrote:

savithru wrote:Irrespective of whether it produces actual effects or not Theurgy is not science and cannot be studied through the scientific method. The understanding of Theurgy among westerners truly sucks.

Tell that to ceremonial magicians. But the point is, it either produces an effect, or it does not. If it does not, it's by definition achieving nothing. If it does, those effects are measurable or they are nothing. If they are measurable, they are subject to scientific scrutiny.

No, the point is some Theurgist has to volunteer himself to subject it to scientific scrutiny otherwise there is no way of testing it. It also doesn't mean that just because no one volunteers its all bollocks.

"Theurgic union is attained only by the perfective operation of unspeakable acts correctly performed, acts which are beyond all understanding, and by the power of unutterable symbols which are intelligible only to the Gods"

Iamblichus, De Mysteriis. 2,11

So acts that are beyond all understanding, yet you complain that the understanding of theurgy among westerners is lacking. Shome mishtake, shurely.

There is absolutely no excuse for the lack of knowledge of theurgy among westerners.

savithru wrote:There is absolutely no excuse for the lack of knowledge of theurgy among westerners.

Other than it is made-up, deluded crap that didn't work then and won't work now?

savithru wrote:
There is absolutely no excuse for the lack of knowledge of theurgy among westerners.

Those who want to learn would rather spend their time on learning about stuff that is actually real?
And for the remainder, reality TV and disposable pop culture crap is the new opiate of the masses, rendering religion unnecessary.

savithru wrote:The world what we are seeing is a mere shadow copy of the real pleromic world that's out there. Gods are in the microcosm as well as in the macrocosm. This is how Indian and Chinese medicine work, this is how by invoking the gods we can make you deaf or dumb and bring rain in places where there is drought and do other unbelievable things. The western academic world has to come to terms with a set of pagan ideas.

Just a minor point I'd love to see cleared up if you don't mind. See, you make these claims in one post whilst in another, like this one:

Irrespective of whether it produces actual effects or not Theurgy is not science and cannot be studied through the scientific method. The understanding of Theurgy among westerners truly sucks.

Now, I've used that pesky underlining tool on both posts to highlight my little quibble. We do have scientific methods to check for things like the ability to hear and for observing rainfall. Hence , at least some of your claims ought to be observable and be able to be studied through the scientific method. That being the case, as demonstrated by your own words, lets have some good old fashioned evidence please.....or are you just posting contradictory shite, hoping that nobody is noticing what you're doing?
I don't mind, if it helps you out, volunteering to be struck deaf and dumb, lets say for 48 hrs or so next Tuesday, Weds and if you could arrange for daily rain on my vegetable patch from next Friday for a couple of weeks whilst I'm away on holiday, that would be just great, my water butts are starting to get worryingly low.