Magnify faith a million times…and you still have…nothing (1m x 0 = 0)
"Nowhere am I so desperately needed as among a shipload of illogical humans."
—Spock in ‘I, Mudd’
Much as I dislike nonsensical atheist memes, I’m even more irritated by ones that express misunderstandings of basic mathematical concepts. As Spock WOULD say, “that is illogical”.
You cannot have an infinite amount of something, even of nothing. There are no infinite things, nor infinity plus one things. Infinity is a concept, not a number. You cannot compare anything to infinity and expect to get the equivalent of nothing.
Nevertheless… if we considered the limit of faith as it approached infinity, perhaps we might get a different result. I’m not sure what ‘irrelevant’ means in this context, as that’s not a number or expression… so, hmm. According to the OP’s analysis, Faith is equal to zero, but zero can’t have a limit of infinity, as a constant(I.E. the limit is always zero, and there’s nothing that’s ‘approaching’ infinity to consider). If it were that faith was approaching zero, as in x/1, where x -> 0, the limit would be zero. If faith = 1/x, where x -> 0, the limit would be infinity. Conversely, if faith = 1/x, where x -> infinity, the limit would equal zero.
This must be what was originally intended, as any other possibility would result in violating mathematical rules. So, atheists: What you should say is that Faith is the limit of 1/x, as x progressively increases toward infinity. Although… as both zero and infinity are incredibly valuable to mathematics, it’s a bit of tortured logic to call this an insult…
rustlevv asked: I whole-heartedly agree with your last reply. But is there credence to the fact that it's not the Christ that drives people away from the Church, but it's the failures of the Church itself? There must always be room for reform. I believe the Christian message is/has been malleable enough to sustain such radical changes. (the Reformation, American anti-slavery hermeneutics, gay-marriage/leadership). Can we look to those most upset with the Church to find those things most wrong with it?
Absolutely, and I believe we(meaning anyone) should critique the church. But not everyone who criticizes their failures seem to want improvement- they want to be rid of it entirely. And I’m a bit reluctant to offer nothing but criticism while ignoring any of the positive things that the church has done, too. We’re only human, and the church is a reflection of that.
rustlevv said:Wait, that’s exactly what I mean! I find it encouraging when people are willing to engage with the symbolism of Xianity at all. (I’m currently a seminarian at Yale)
I didn’t mean to imply you didn’t know that, I only find it silly when they use the symbol without understanding where it comes from. And worse when some Christians think it must be offensive without knowing where it comes from. Knowing history is always a good thing!
Christians get accused of hypocrisy far too much, though- the reason why so few live up to Christ’s model is because that model was impossible to live up to, by design. That’s why we need God! Personally, I think a Satanist/Lucipherist who uses a Christian symbol as a means of rejecting Christians or Christianity is also a hypocrite… just they’re rarely ever called on it.
Post with 1 note
rustlevv said:Satanism/Luciferism amounts to an aesthetic rejection of the hypocrisy of Christian believers, not the Christian faith. The very fact that most feel bound to use the cross, but upside down, seems evidence enough of this.
Rather unfortunate/ridiculous, considering that there’s nothing un-Christian about the upside-down cross.
Post reblogged from with 6 notes
aside from your sticking to the bible story even though it was explicitly stated the bible story was already disregarded [which is a topic i really don’t care about, just amusing] the following stood out to me:
Lucipher is taken from the ‘bible story’, so it seems entirely fair to me that the basic concept of WHO LUCIPHER IS might be considered. Otherwise, why adhere to any part of the biblical account?
God already decided what was light and dark, and what was good and evil.
that is authoritarian values. such values are no more objective than any other.
Um, ok. When you recreate the universe, I’ll consider your moral values and definition of ‘objective’. More to the point, this is what the bible says is true about God- if you don’t agree, then fine. But you don’t get to invent your own definitions of words, nor your own account of theology.
also sounds arbitrary, from the use of the word “decide”.
Human beings don’t get a vote about it either…
bare assertion. unconvincing.
Then you don’t understand what objective means, nor why it would apply to the biblical God. Not my problem.
so if they believe God actually created the universe, then worship of Lucipher makes no sense.
it’s possible for someone to believe god created the universe without also accepting your non-neuron-evolved-contingent (platonic?) version of morality. don’t pretend it isn’t. so false dichotomy. wow.
If that’s the case, then they’re not following BIBLICAL accounts of God… which include Lucipher. That ultimately makes their beliefs self-contradictory. Not sure what your point was.
Post with 6 notes
pauliorra said:The point is that lucifer, in their eyes, is good. It is not the lucifer described in the Bible. The Bible would be considered the “official story” and lucifer would be the giver of light. I am not this anon BTW
Yeah, that much I understand. The problem I have with that is that even if THEY consider Lucipher good, he’s still not the one who set up the rules of the universe(by the biblical definitions of God and Lucipher). God already decided what was light and dark, and what was good and evil. Lucipher doesn’t get a vote on it, as he can only be a rebel in opposition to the sole source of objective morality that exists. Human beings don’t get a vote about it either… so if they believe God actually created the universe, then worship of Lucipher makes no sense.
I.E., they’re delusional and/or theologically ignorant. Or, that if they think the world was created by rival deities, they’re describing polytheism, not God or Lucipher.
Question with 1 note
Anonymous asked: What are your thoughts on Luciferianism (it's different from Satanism)?
I’m not as familiar with that one, but it seems similar to gnosticism. Based on what little I know of it, I have two thoughts:
1. If someone follows it but doesn’t believe in Lucifer as an actual being, why not just call oneself pagan/gnostic?
2. If someone does believe in Lucifer as an actual being, as described in the bible, then they’re delusional for wanting to worship him. If they believe the bible is wrong about Lucipher(but that God is still the creator of the universe), then worship of him is an exercise in stupidity or futility. If they believe that God and Lucipher are equal deities with opposing viewpoints, well… they’re no longer describing biblical Christianity. So find a polytheistic religion instead.
Either way, I don’t understand the point to it.
Question with 7 notes
Anonymous asked: Do athiests lack morals?
Of course not. Atheists are humans, and as varied as any other group of humans. Those who adopt -philosophies- that lack any structured sense of morality may still be wonderful people, just as a Christian may be a horrible person.
Question with 3 notes
Anonymous asked: Satanism is an antidote to morality? Why?
It is a religion/philosophy that teaches the pursuit of desire above all else, with little regard to how one’s actions might affect those around them, and even less for how desire may harm oneself. It is appealing for the same reason Ayn Rand’s philosophy was appealing to people: It requires no discipline, no absolute sense of right or wrong, no particular moral reasoning of its adherents, and no concern for the less fortunate. It names man as his own God, and places the individual as superior to all else. Anton LaVey(who was influenced by Objectivism) and his cult was largely atheistic, so the primary intention seems to have been to loudly reject all other beliefs and ideas while naming one’s own as absolute.
Which does describe quite a few internet atheists, but not morality. Desire without self-control is dangerous, and saying that everyone’s view of morality is ‘equally valid’ is identical to saying it doesn’t exist at all. It’s a simplistic ideology that appeals to people who don’t like philosophy or thinking too deeply.
…Hope that answers your question!
Question with 4 notes
Anonymous asked: How do you feel about people using Satanism as an "ironic" example of a nicer religion than Christianity? Such as claiming "Satan accepts everyone while God punishes!!!" or that Satanism has laws against rape when the religion is pretty young and created by those sick of organized religion as well as focusing on Satan from works like Paradise Lost than scripture. It just seems like a rather inappropriate comparison outside pissing off fundies.
If it is actually ironic, I don’t particularly care. Most “satanists” are young, privileged, and completely ignorant of what Satanism(or Christianity) actually teaches: Claims like “Satan accepts everyone while God punishes” only prove that, since “actual” Satanism doesn’t worship/necessarily believe in Satan. They’re little more than atheists who thought atheism wasn’t making enough people angry… and it’s highly unlikely to be a lifetime commitment. So I suspect that ‘pissing off fundies’ is exactly what’s intended by it.
The only thing that concerns me is when people get the message that Satan(or the concept of him) or Satanism is genuinely more compassionate than God/Christianity. That’s theologically ignorant, as well as a misinterpretation of Satanism. “Accepting everyone” doesn’t mean anything- would they also accept murderers, rapists, etc?
There’s a lot that could be said about the founder(s) of Satanism and why the “religion” is not an antidote to organized religion so much as an antidote to morality(even without the actual satan-worship). I’m just not sure it’s worthwhile to argue the point.
Page 1 of 24