The Satanic quality of the Internet
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/how-the-web-is-killing-faith/2012/05/24/gJQAMHgLnU_blog.html

This is why the freedom of the internet must be defended at all cost against attempts to gag it, to censor it, to control it, to ban it. When in the 60s the anti-Vietnam and the Hippy-movement in America and the reform-pedagogues and the so-called 68ers in Germany/Europe started to revolt not only against petrified and indeed misled moral crusts and value-monuments, they not only started to breath fresh air into the space occupied by these, but they started to deconstruct constructive things and what in principle is good quality in our societies as well. The aftermath of this in Europe and especially in Germany maybe are more alive still than in America, I do not know for sure about the US. But a result of this deconstruction of the moral fundament was that the counter-revolution by the religious establishements also started going, having come greater power again since let'S say the past 20 years while they claim that secularism is a great threat to the world and needs to be replaced with obedience to the church's dogma (that is what the pope also told America when he visited the US, wasn't it: that the primary duty of the believers shall be obedience to the church).

This counter-revolution of the parasite clergy has led to some remarkable successes in its attempt to revive some of the claims it has lost since the church lost in influence since the rennaissance and enlightenment.

But the plan does not go as smooth as planned anymore. Churches are emptying in Europe, which is good in principle. Unfortunately, mosques multiply, which is not good at all. And the church helps the Islamisation becausue it hopes to benefit from Islam'S success, and a society it needs to share with Islam'S dogma still is better to the church than a society that is truly secular and independent from the church, and does not want and does not need it. The power and control, the influence and the wealth of clergy needs the weakness and lacking education of the sheep it tries to convince that they must accept being herded by the clergy, else....

That it doe snot go that smooth anymore is due to the slow spread of scientific information, general education, contact to other, less sadistic religions that before existed in global isolation somewehre else - and since one decade also due to the internet.

And neither churches nor offended Muslims, not polticians and parties nor governments and secret services shall be allowed without bitterly resisting to them to gag and censor and limit freedom of speech on the web. So watch out especially against the cowardish dhimmies of the EU and the Christian fundamentalists in American politics. They will - and already do - push hard for bringing the web under control of their dogmas, and they will have no scruples to deceive and to lie over the intention, if that helps their cause. The best weapon against fanatic religious ideology is education, and the spreading of counter-evidence to dogmatic claims, and raising challenges to claims that in past centuries just passed by unchallenged, with all the intimidation and submission that followed in their wake.

We shall not give up this freedom, never.

Indeed :salute:

Amen, brother! :rock:

In my opinion, on the internet you get the exact same amount of rights and freedoms as in real life, no more, and no less.

There will be regulations and everything just like in real life.

I think of the internet like the wild west. sure, it starts lawless. But someday the sheriff would come and clean the place up.

Its not all that simple...

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/...reams-1.432083

(not sure you will be able to see that due to new haaretz policy:damn:.)

Please post no more than one paragraph of an article, and use a link for the rest. Subsim.com risks charges of plagiarism otherwise.

Fixed

Danke. :sunny:

The internet is not killing religious faith its killing the cowboy preachers. The internet has help spread the faith of all religions including that rogue religion - Satanism. The best part of it is anyone can now question and look it up to see if that self proclaim preacher online is the real thing or just another cowboy preacher. IMO the internet is like an open book when it comes to religious faith. You don't even need to own the bible or Koran whatever your faith may be its all there on the internet. The internet is the new cross or fork...

Mark 13:10
But first, the Good News must be spread to all nations

Anyway im off to search online for more updates on Diablo 3 and his demon buddies :haha:

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this? Is this a case of 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't'? Or , 'be careful what you wish for'.

I agree with Kiwi_2005. The internet will not put an end to religious faith. If anything it will make it more accessible. Of course this applies to any sort of dogma, including Atheism and yes Satanism. Although there are truth seekers out there, I would wager that most people who visit websites such as these are doing so to confirm beliefs they all ready hold. It is easy to check facts and statements but this cuts both ways. To believe that any one person or organization has a lock on truth is dangerous to be sure , but surfing the internet believing what you find is unbiased opinion is foolhardy.

I find it hard to believe that in a world where big money and government control almost everything else, the internet won't fall under their influence. Speaking only for my self of course , I would have to be naive to think other wise. I hope it doesn't happen, but I've been around long enough to know better. It has little to do with "fanatical religious ideology" Skybird. "Money doesn't talk, it swears". I believe a Jewish entertainer said that.:DL

As to "We shall not give up this freedom, never." , I'm right there with you buddy. Without freedom of thought and expression what is there?

I love it when a quote of mine gets put into a different context and thus the content is given a completely different twist.

No, this is not a case of 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't'.

And I think that is clear by what I originally said. And what I originally said is not that I do favour the one over the other, but that I despise both. If chruches, mosques and synagogues would get burnt dopwn and Bible Quran and Thora gets destroyed for once and forever, the world woul become a much better, less hateful place.

I recommend to read chapter 7, sub-section 3 (chapter headlines in the German edition would be "Das 'gute' Buch und der wandelbare ethische Zeitgeist - Liebe Deinen Nächsten") of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" where he summarises the experimental results from psychological research done by Israeli psychologist George Tamarin. The way that religious indoctrination already present in the heads of small kids decides on whether genocide is recognised by over a thousand school kids he questioned in his experiment as a moral abjection or a cause that can be morally justified, is a revelation.

The whole book is.

P.S.

On the story about George Tamarin. His university sacked him over the project.

It was not my intention to misquote you but to point out an ironic situation. Although the larger and more 'secular' forms of Christianity may concede ground to Islam, fundamental Christianity is directly opposed to it. It was supposed to be funny unlike this:

Or your version of a less hateful place.

If this is your vision of a better tomorrow, to hope for the eradication of thousands of years of history, literature and architecture, count me out. I miss judged you. If these people insist on their belief even after their books and buildings are destroyed what's next? Break a little glass. Perhaps a camp here and there.

Your view of unlimited internet freedom is somewhat tainted by this desire to suppress other peoples thoughts and beliefs.

I'm disappointed. And I take it back. If this is your version of freedom of speech, it's somewhat corrupt and I won't stand with you.

The church financed some arts, yes, but that does not make it the author or originator of it. Many arttists needed to make some living, and thuds had to accept to do ordered arts as well. And who else should have payed for them, if not the church? For centuries, the church was, beside the corrupt aristocracy, the only possible maecenas, since frarmer and odinary people were pressed out quite hefty by clergy and kings and lords as well.

Most of the cultural developement and arts last but not least comes from sources that were not patronised by the ch8urch,k but that the church bitterly fought against. Also, all our current freedoms and ideas about justice, humanism, sceluarism, did not appear because the church helped in them, but they appeared after centuries of bitter fight against the church that wanted to supress them, and did so mit unimaginably cruel means for long time. Our modern liberties have been wrested from the church against it bitter resistence. Heck, it is not even 20 years ago that the church, still growling, rehabilitated Gallileo Gallilei, and it has been only a few years that, as I already quoted, the pope told the American public that the Chriostian believers first and most impoortant duty is that he owes obedience - not to the teahcing of Jesus, not to thre semron of the mount, not to God no matter how you nimagine, no - your first and most imporetant duty is that you owe obedience to the church.

What part exactly is it that makes you wonder why I have a problem with this church...???

I stand by it, without these evil sadistic three desert dogmas Judaism, Christinaity, and Muhameddanism, the world would be a better world, with less hate, less ointolerance, less violence. There would be less evil caused by relgious beliefs, legitmised by relgious beliefs, and carried out int her name of relgious beliefs. Beliefs that until today stand completely untested, always demand, want respect where there is nothing they would deserve it for, and carry out a lot of censorship and repression against those not agreeing with them.

Not depending on these, makes oyu a more moral being. Not depending on these, makes you a more reasonable being. Not depending on these makes you a more tolerant and kind being. Not depending on these makes oyu a person able to use its mind, while relgion wants to prohibit you to do just that.

So yes, let all churches, mosques and synagogues burn, burn Jerusalem and Bethlehem, Mekka and Medina and Vatican city. Consider it to be liberation day after 2000 years and more of bitter, inhumane tyranny. Consider it to be leaving intellectual slavery and abuse behind. A world not ruled by religious dogmas and theistic psychopaths in the sky that have made sadism there most favourite hobby, is a sane world, and a sane world is a better world, and it is a world that is more free, with better chances for the young who no longer get infested with the brain poison of guilt, submission, hate and fear.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=194878

Don't be mistaken, if the talking about freedom of speech for you means to exclude religion from it since it deserve this precious "respect" that even free speech has to bow to, than you never have stood on my side at all. ;) Understand this: my freedom and the freedom of anybody who can appreciate the value of freedom is a thousand times more precious and important than the claim of any religion to be excluded from criticism or claims for respect that eligion wants, but does not deserve. The history of christian relgion, Judaism and Islam is a history of war after war, killing, murder, genocide, more war, torture, persectuion, supression, again some wars inbetween, discrimination, hate preachings, intimidation, some more wars to make it a round package, and above all the floating entity of the big eye in the sky that thratens even more of all this in case his excentric orders and commands for all this are not followed to the point. Speaking of being screwed no matter what you do!

Okay, now I understand, maybe. I should have caught on sooner. This church that you speak of is the one with the funny hats. There is a difference. This church in no way represents millions of Christian believers and it does not represent me. They don't speak for me nor I for them. I know this church as I was born into it but have been a 'protester' for many years. Surely you understand the difference. Some of your criticisms of it I might even agree with.

Really, Skybird. You believe this? This reasoning, taken to it's logical conclusion can only mean that a person of faith cannot be a moral, reasonable, tolerant and kind being. This is nonsense my friend. Pure atheist dogma. This can be so easily disputed it's not worth talking about.

I think it is you who may be mistaken. If you can in any way infer from my posts the idea that religion or for that matter anyone or anything is above criticism please quote me on it. Far from it I believe that when it comes to free speech everything is on the table. Your version seems to include the destruction of other people's thoughts and ideas that you don't like. I guess you are right. I was never on your side.

I do not care what somebody believes in as longas he keeps it in his private closet like I also want people to keep their sexual obessions in their bedrooms - and not posing with the one or the other in public.

I am not your friend. And the issue is worth talking about and I cannot see you being able to diuspute about it - you just act like any relgiouzs person, while claiming you do not belong to the club. And in this thread ( and the other thread I have mentioned and linked to above) I mentioned and linked to three different more systematic examinations on the issue on how atheism and religious faith effects the morality and intelligence of people for the worse and the better. And this are just two such examples I linked two - I could quote more but I see no point in drownign you in quotes (that I need to type, btw) from for example Dawkins, or Hitchens. Still, I already lead in explanations and giving reasonbs, while you, as any brave believers always does, just dismiss it as irrelevant and imply that you on your behalf must not explain and answer anything.

edit: just for you, since you have missed them apparently:
link1
link2 (good idea to actually read it to the end before blowing up)
link3
link4

It does not make much of a diffrence then whether you are member of the church, formally, or not.

Religious dogma is not in the free speech business, that is not its branch. Far the opposite is true, relgious dogma expects acceptance for limiting free speech and reaosnable questions and examinations of dogma. And that's why I do not tolerate it and wants is structures and symbols of power destroyed, becasue the freedom a dogma allows is always a limited freedom only, a freedom peppered with exceptions for dogma, a special status for dogma, and an implicit demand for dominance of dogma over freedom.

Because where there is free thought and free speech and free opinion and freely run analysis, there cannot be dogma. Dogma replaces free speech and free thought and free opinion and freely conducted anaxlsis. That is the very purpose of dogma.

that'S why you must chose. It's either the one or the other, and always totally. You cannot have both.

And this is the reaosn why nothign else in the history og manklind as we can follow it back over the past at least 2.5 thosuand years has caused more violence, hate, intolerqance, supression discrimination, than religions. With the monotheistic three desert dogmas being the worst of all, considering history, and bringing out not the best but the worst in man.

Freedom is the natural enemy of religious dogma, since inj the light ofd freedom dogma cannot survive. That simple it is. And thats why religious dogma has fought against freedom - at all times, and today.

Some summarising but essential readings, all available in English and German as well. Refering to these would save me from the need to always quote from them or referring to them:

link 1 (watch the video there)
link 2
link 3

The first book demasks especially creationist and fundamentalist claims by which they try to infiltrate science and education and erode and compromise them from within, it counters false claims made and religiuous pseudoscience by giving solid scientific arguments to show the many flawed claims and basic thinking errors there. The second book focusses more on the disastrous record of crime, violence and brutality caused by religion in human history, and uses not scientific evidence or theory like Darwin, but logical and reasonable thinking and argument to rip of the mask of religious dogma. Hitchens is more aggressive than Dawkins, but he is so with a mind formed of laserbeams, I sometimes think. The third book does not engage in the battle between religion and atheism at all, but offers a culture-free alternative attitude towards life and existence and does so by reducing all dominant theories, traditions, schools, arts, philosphy, science etc to the lowest common denominator with an accent set on Buddhist models of mind and consciousness, then examines what this lowest common denominator is. This is probably the most friendly of the three books, which should not mean it makes compromises with dogmas, but it also is the most abstract in the beginning, and the most difficult and demanding to read. After the first third, when needed theoretic conceptions and terms have been dealt with and got sufficiently explained and interlinked, the book becomes easier and more comfortable to read.

You are expressing your beliefs here quite plainly. You are some how above your own rules.

Your choice. I am disputing it. I'll put it in the form of a question. Can a person of faith be a moral, reasonable, tolerant and kind person? Yes or no. You seem to avoid the most obvious points of a discussion to post links from somewhat biased sources. You may have noticed that I refrain from that. Despite what you think I speak for myself. Can you say the same? Quoting Dawkins and other atheist bishops is not impressing me. You can stop any time. I was an atheist for twenty years. Please don't lecture me on their beliefs.

I am not disputing this. But I do know this for certain; there are many forms of belief. Atheism is as dogmatic a belief system as any religion on this planet. I have no problem with that. You can believe or disbelieve whatever you choose. Question is will you afford others the same freedom.

This would suggest otherwise.

This thread began on the subject of free speech on the internet and the fear that it might be restricted. I'll go on record to say that I believe in complete freedom of thought, speech and belief, regardless of my own personal belief.

If you, Mr. Skybird can say the same thing we're done.

When i have explained it so much in detail what my "faith", my "belief", my "religion's content" is, then tell me: what is it: What is the relgion I subscribe to, eh, and that I want to impose on you poor haunted victim? You say I explained to you my belief and faith and relgion, so tell me all about me.

I give you a hint: I have none, and I leave the question "why are there things existing, why is there not just nothing?" unanswered, since I know that neither me nor nobody else has an answer to that. A knowledge somebody believes to have, is no knowledge, but 100% belief for sure. Knowledge must not be believed, but known.

He can. But that is not due to his fiath, but despite of faith. The moral one would extract from the Bible, the Quran, the Thora, would make a being that the police usually tries to lock away immediately, as long as he does not defend himself by calling his immorality his "religion".

The studies I linked to are sociological-psyhcological studies, and before you call the auniversities behind them as biased becasue you do not like the findings, I demand your methodologically well-fuinded criticism. That is considered good academic tradition, you know.

Dawkins also bases his counter-arguments on scientific answers, espeically Darwinian evolution. To stick wioth a theorty as long as it is not replaced by a better one, or is proven wrong, is not biased, but again: well-estiablished academic method.

I would agree that hitchens is more aggressive in his publications and appearances, but again, he is on the basis of arguemnts and intellectual cleverness that you can either prove false, or you don't.

Nothing of the stuff I linked to, is biased in a meaning of being prejudiced from beginning on. It is basing on substantial matter that you either can counter, or you can't.

Atheists do not have beliefs. They are in dismissal of beliefs - that'S what makes them atheists. Can't you see the absurdity of calling atheists believers?

Evidence, please. This claim is often repted, But until today it is just a claim - and a pretty stupid one.

If their beleifs demand me to fall back and give them space, accept barbarity and violence, absue and supression of historically unmatched proportions, pay respect to their dogmas motivating these things and excusing them afterwards, then I am afraid I cannot promise that I will. The history of the three theistic desert dogmas is not a friendly or humane one, and I tend to judge them by their records of racism, brutality, genocide, intellectual suppression and mental abuse.

No. It began with pointing out that the internet helps in undermining faith'S dogmatism and claims for power (post #1). That was what the article I first linked is about. I further commented on that saying that this is an example for why the freeedom of speech non the web must be defended (#1). But the start made the vulnerability of dogmatism to free internet communication. The brawel now started in ypour post #10 where you took a quote by me out of context and put it into a very different one that twiosted it quite massively. And that was what I took queer. The rest is a consequence of that.

Does the use of the adress "Mr." mean that you wish to socially distance yourself from me?

Yet you believe in invisible writing hidden in treaties and secret conspiracies both in europe and the wider world some of which are frankly more crazily unbelievable than even the kookiest religion, you strongly repeately and very insistantly espouse beliefs that fly in the face of demonstrable fact and hold steadfastly that these beliefs of yours must really be true and should be accepted by others as real.

So does that mean Skybird cannot by his own standards be an atheist?:yep:

Are you kidding? You're telling me a zombie carpenter of immaculate birth is more plausible than the CIA or the Mafis shot JFK?

What is it they say, people are willing to forgive the big lies more readily than the small ones?

Religion and the church are theoretically two separate things, but how many people hold a faith where they don't ascribe to the beliefs espoused by a particular church? Why do we need pastors and priests and fathers and imams and so on if faith can exist outside the church? Really, how many truly faithful chrsitians don't go to church? How much of modern religion is made up of positive moral attitudes versus the flat statement that to be faithful is to respect the church?

I believe that religion is a result of the rational human being confronting the irrational nature of the world. Why is the internet likely to damage religion? Because the access to knowledge and the open minded education of people always immediately places a rational mind at odds with the fabrications sold to the followers of a faith.

If religion has such value to us then why is it the bastion of narrow mindedness? Why is it that the body of power that must be fought for freeing most of our modern attitudes is usually centred in our old religions?

I'm not going to say that we don't owe a great deal of our identity to the history as it was propelled forward through a christian, jewish, or muslim light. I would not undo the great basilicas that litter Europe or forget the stories of gallant knights and all that. But thats not justification for letting it direct us once we've outgrown it.

The church is a power base. Its no different than Stalinist Russia. Its a means toward control. How much of Christianity is merely a construct devised to absorb control of the major elements of daily life? For centuries in Europe marriage was a tribal rite, something altogether secular, entirely political or perhaps romantic. It was only cneturies after Christ was allegedly crucified that the Church appropriated that institution for itself. Today Christians would have you believe they invented it.

I may admire some religious people, I may respect them as people, but whatever merit religion has is easily outweighed by the terrible toll of human suffering its inflicted in the name of "Faith in God".

I personally much more admire the polytheistic pagan culture of pre-Christ. The greeks were far more interesting in their beliefs. The gods were just like people, filled with emotion, conflicted, great and terrible, an excellent example how religion is borne of the relationship between man's rational mind and the irrational world and our need to make the two meet up. However, the inevitable result of religion is that it centres itself in a powerful institution that seeks to maintain its control with no respect towards even the values that it itself purports to hold majesty over.

Monotheism just gives me a headache.