Do you believe in God, or do you even think about things spiritually?

I pray to something, sometimes, and I bargain with something too if the moment calls for it.

I try not to think bad thoughts, when I do I feel myself inwardly apologising as if I think I'm being listened to and judged.

So, yeah I guess...

Religion qua religion is not widely hated in Ireland. Hating on THE CHURCH has become common in Ireland, to be sure, but I've seen very little criticism of that church's teachings. This isn't a new phenomenon; the first landlord to be taken to court under Gladstone's Land Act was the local parish bishop in Tipperary

So no, never.

aren't there some areas where, without a belief in a greater power, there can be middleground between atheism and spirituality? perhaps not.

I mean aren't things like philosophy often close to a form of spiritualism? the questions raised therin can't necessarily be answered by science can they?

The kind of intolerance of faith that I am advocating in my book is not the intolerance that gave us the gulag. It is conversational intolerance. When people make outlandish claims, without evidence, we stop listening to them--except on matters of faith. I am arguing that we can no longer afford to give faith a pass in this way. Bad beliefs should be criticized wherever they appear in our discourse--in physics, in medicine, and on matters of ethics and spirituality as well. The President of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. Now, if he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ludicrous or more offensive.

I like to think of my spiritual/artistic heroes in this as Jesuit-educated turncoats James Joyce and Luis Buñuel as well as professed believers Anthony Burgess and David Lodge. And Andy Warhol for that matter.

And remember the famous Woody Allen quote:
"To you I'm an atheist, to God I'm the Loyal Opposition."

Are you kidding? The word 'reasonable', containing 'reason', should help here. The atheist's theory -- evolution -- is, um, *more* verifiable than the creationist line, is it not. ie it hasn't been thoroughly disproved.

Why shouldn't we?

I had a brief spiritual crisis towards the end of my third decade. It was born out of sudden mystifying fear of death: I didn't want to be nothing, for everything to continue om for a billion years full of stories I'd never see the end, or start, of.

When people make outlandish claims, without evidence, we stop listening to them

Sebastien, this isn't true.

I wish this was intentional.

I just can't imagine how anything so restrictive and regulated could ever fit into anyones spiritual worldview, but I suppose some people really do treat catholicism or christianity as a sort of warts and all thing.

Religion is how we know about God.
See? You just did.

It claims to have insights about His doings.
Lot's of peopleclaim a lot of things.

What is your God, what does He do?
The god of nothing does nothing.

In what sense does 'He' exist.
He doesn't.

Does he intervene in the material world?
No.

(* this is very important to my statement)

(and thats a jillion xposts btw)

I always used to hate it when people would tell me "you've got to believe in something." You could tell them "I don't mind if you have to, but why should I?" but that doesn't seem to work.

Did he make laws.
No.

How do we know what those laws are?
We don't. We made up our own.

Baxter, can you get it through you head that I'm not talking about any concept of gos that currently exists?

yes you are:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/

(by massive coincidence, i was reading this when this thread wz posted)

There, roving bands of ILXers frolic with the abandon so appropriate to wild folk in their native habitat. God would approve of Q's and our collective displacement to that Adamic Eden - as Eden was no doubt full of shit, too.

The existence of 'God' in the magickal work is basically not debated. Most magicians agree that there is an ebb and a flow from/towards something, a 'prime mover', the Instigator of the cosmic drama.

The problematic issue is the nature of this 'God'.

Let me state for the record: whatever ideas you have about 'God', learned or created in your mind, are just that - ideas.

Whether a state, a force, an energy, a compulsion, a mind, whatever, magicians take the same route as the Buddhists: 'God' is the Unknowable, the Unbeheld, and since we are mere fractions of the larger whole, holographic entities that are part of that 'God', and thus 'smaller' than it, we cannot comprehend its true nature. Only God can comprehend itself (which may be the reason for our existence, but that's a tangent deserving of its own post).

This is no slippery cop-out though. The path of magickal understanding IS the path to God. That being the case, the ultimate goal of magick is 'union with the Absolute', a return to our true nature, which is at its apex the nature of God. In a sense, then, the magickal journey is an undressing of God. The hermetically-sealed secrets of the universe slowly but surely unfold and reveal themselves to the mage, each new revelation acting as a stepping stone to the next, each one unravelling another tiny part of the Great Enigma.

True magick is unconcerned with dogma, morality and such. It can therefore be deemed amoral, and any immorality in magick is entirely the responsibilty of the individual. This is hugely important point, given that magick has been sullied by the Church through history as 'evil', and heathen. Magick is not good or evil, any more than people are good or evil. Both are merely choices to be made at any given situation.

One does not follow a set of rules when he/she enters the Invisible College. The books, teachers and the lessons themself are all guides to the Absolute Truth, not the Truth itself. If these lessons are abused, one cannot blame the pursuit of magick itself, only the morality (or lack thereof) in the individual who chooses to wield this knowledge unwisely.

Whether he/she knows it or not, the magician is part of ancient and unbroken line of huMans who act for the benefit of the collective species, not for personal gain or glory. The magician can be thought of as a factor built into the huMan animal in order to try and lead it towards the light. If the dissolution of the false ego is one of the ultimate goals in magick, what use is self-aggrandising and power-play?

A mage may decide that it is time for the Word to be disseminated again, to fan the flames of magickal perception in the species, as has happened time and again through our history. If so, he/she may then use any means deemed necessary (conforming to the Thelemic mantra of 'Do What Though Wilt', of course, and recognising the astral ancestry of each individual on the planet, again, of course!) to become the ideal vehicle for the message and the age in which he/she lives.

If this requires the use of media, self-promtion etc, s/he must move wisely, and treat it with the respect s/he shows any other part of his/her magickal life.

S/he must severely reprimand the ego if it begins to lose focus and behaves like a demi-god drunk on nectar. However, s/he must never fear success or, in moderation and with restraint, the pleasures of the flesh.

The mage sees everything as a reflection or a shard of the Unbeheld, and thus every single thing, natural or man-made, huMan, animal or floral, can be studied and enjoyed in the hope of catching some glimpse of the Instigator at work.

This is a marked difference between magick and Buddhism. While Buddhism itself is one of the noble arts, and has much to offer the mage, s/he should never be ashamed of his huManity. Rather, magick teaches us that, for whatever reason, the huMan has been crafted as the perfect microcosm, a holographic entity designed with the sensor arrays (and the ability to collate and understand the information received by said sensors) needed to absorb and understand its place in the cosmic Scheme and, more importantly, to transcend that state.

The huMan is the perfect vessel, the ultimate vehicle through which the Aboriginal can return to itself.

We are designed to search, and ultimately understand, our true nature. We are not born blind, deaf and dumb, without the capacity to understand ourselves; this crippling lack of faculties is learned over time. It is our right, God-given, to remember, to rise above our frozen zombie state, to become shining, enlightened individuals, worthy of a place in the pantheon.

Thankfully, Magick does not have us begging on our knees for access to the Gates of Heaven. Neither does it have us renounce our huManity.

Instead, it provides us with the radical, revolutionary tools for storming Heaven itself, and demanding an audience with God. As is our right.

It is also recommended by F3rn4nd0 P3r31r4 at UPenn: http://radio.weblogs.com/0100167/

xpost

1) Regardless of the issue ---- make sure you bring up your views on abortion, capital punishment, Christianity, and the political party you least like, regularly. Make sure your use the terms "wrong", "evil", "sinful" and "false" in describing views that differ from your particular beliefs. Try to work in the terms "blinded" or "deluded".

2) Depending on YOUR orientation refer to your opponents in arguments (or debates that hold the promise of becoming arguments) as facists or communists as often as possible. Suggest that their views parallel those held in Nazi Germany or of Stalinist USSR at least once.

3) Point out the shortcomings of the opposite gender. Using tasteless jokes that you ascribe to others is a favorite ploy. If your opponent is of the same sex ---- cast doubt on their sexual orientation.

4) When you've managed to get a good heated exchange going try to score points by using a word that will drive your opponent to the dictionary. Mock any attempts on their part to do the same. If possible humiliate them and react to attacks on your arguments with ironic references to misspellings, ill-conceived sentence construction, or inappropriate word usage.

5) If you make an error, never apologize. Blame it on a technical difficulty or on your opponent's mischaracterization of your argument.

6) When inspired, make sure you word your attacks and counterattacks so that you leave no opening for your adversary to capitulate to your view except in disgrace. Try to make certain that every avenue of response is a path of shame. Phrases like "only a idiot or a scumbag would argue that ..." are very helpful.

7) If you start to slip in an argument attack the person. It's most helpful to know something personal about them so that your ad hominems point out both academic/professional defects and their deficiencies as a human.

8) If someone levels an attack upon you, respond that in their reliance on ad hominem attacks the argument has deteriorated to a level that no longer warrants your participation. This can be a winning blow if played properly. Be subtle here, and clever; try to convey the sense of your opponent as dim-witted, ethically degenerate, desperate, and outmanuevered by your overwhelming intellectual superiority. The real joy here is that you can neatly do away with any respect due your opponent, slander his character, lacerate his pride, and, if done properly and with elan, simultaneously represent yourself as a man or woman whose ethics and moral sensitivity make it impossible for you to do what you just did. This one is a real gem -- and when executed gracefully -- really an art form.

8) When you face a loss, construct a "straw man" argument either by taking your opponets words out of context or by changing the issue. Never lose ---- change the issue. If your opponent has the facts on thier side, argue that facts don't constitute scholarship and understanding, and might even be a sign that one has not yet come to the level of understanding at all. Claim that computers store facts and that real scholarship is the sign of being able to understand and seeing the deeper connections.

9) Remember that you are always right. No matter what forces are marshalled against you, no matter how reasonable, humble, or generous, don't give an inch, don't be swayed. You are always right. It's the other side that caused this ruckus and keeps it going.

10) Always insist on the last word. The only honorable finish is unconditional capitulation by your adversaries or their defeated silence.

in\tel\lec\tu\al adj. 1.a. Of or relating to the intellect. b. Rational rather than emotional. 2. Appealing to or engaging the intellect. 3.a. Having or showing intellect, especially to a high degree. b. Given to exercise of the intellect; inclined toward abstract thinking about aesthetic or philosophical subjects. --in\tel\lec\tu\al n. An intellectual person.

1. An exaggerated feeling of being superior to others.
2. A psychological defense mechanism in which feelings of superiority counter or conceal feelings of inferiority.

... Unlike Ken, who just follows Q around like a pathetic dog.

-- ken c

-- ken c

My family was always pretty liberal artsy types, and still are for the most part. I don't think I ever really believed in God, and the moment i realized i don't was around when i realized i didn't believe in Santa Clause, which was pretty early. I had worked out in my mind that Santa was the spirit of Christmas, a metaphorical thing;a common figure to keep people in line and have them come together to celebrate.

In middle school when i was getting more and more into constant social interactions i began really resenting Christianity. The small town i was living in had multiple souther baptist churches and one of them was right next to the school. The prep/jocks crowd (ie the popular kids) were always doing after school activities that were church oriented and took place at the school. I started thinking about things like "Why does it say 'In God We Trust' on all the money?"

By high school i was really sick of watching people bring Bibles to class and treating me as a potential Youth club member. I starting reading books that were exciting and offered alternative ways of thinking (surrealism, 60s revolutionaries, Buddhism, absurdism, etc). I eventually got into books of The Church of the Subgenius cos i thought it was funny, they simultaneously satisfied my desire to see Christianity ridiculed and reality celebrated as absurd, silly and random.

Early in college I got heavily into Nihilism, Existentialism, Solipsism, and records by the Monkees. It all made sense initially but then kind of blurred into a general distrust of reality. I thought of myself as a humanist (or whatever i defined a humanist as) and decided, you know, it looks like there's some things that are far too infinite and complex for us to know, shouldn't we just focus on making life better here and now and not just whining about how we will never know what another is thinking or if the room on the other side of the door exists if you can't see it? I had a spiritual vision that changed my life and connected all this to the process of art and creating and communication. I had drank a full bottle of Robotussin and decided Sunday Morning by the Velvet Underground was the most beautiful song ever. I still think so of course.

Eventually I realized this humanist approach was basically the Golden Rule of Jesus and i watched many relationships fall and many people die and I started to see the value of Christianity and organized religion for a lot of people, that even though it wasn't what i personally believed i could see it taken as a metaphor. And besides, the peace of mind it gave looked pretty nice. By this time I had settled on the belief that we can't really prove anything, so who's to say the universe isn't just a random series of events or that there is a God father in the clouds waving his finger at us.

By then i started trying to see everything as beautiful, i guess i became an Aesthete or whatever. I didn't really care about spirituality and was content on recieving sensory persepction as something amazing and spiritual in itself, something to be treasured. It blew my mind enough to realize that i was on top of a planet flying through outer space around the sun. Anyways right now i think astronomy is the shit and analyzing the thought that light travels at a finite rate makes the universe seem so new to me.

(sorry to ramble on so..)

fairly self-explanatory

- there's a song title if ever there was one