• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Something for the Sceptics

N

Ninae

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
4,522
"Occult Theocracy" by Lady Queensborough

http://www.whale.to/c/occult-theocracy.pdf


Not trying to be funny, just though this book could be interesting to look at for some.

"There are people who refuse to believe in the existence of the supernatural even when confronted with the evidence. Such are the sceptics who deny everything. Hidebound in their prejudice, they ignore the fact that magic, White or Black, has now as many adepts as ever. Many persons are duped by charlatans so the sceptics persuade themselves of the absolute non-existence of diabolical practices in modern times. They are wrong. For occultims flourishes now in Europe, Asia, and America."

There's also an interesting story of her being killed for writing this book. I've only just started, but have a feeling there will be a lot that's new to me. About secret priesthoods, etc.
 
Last edited:
One must be enticed. Much that is written is not worth the time to read. What makes this worth the time?
 
"There are people who refuse to believe in the existence of the supernatural even when confronted with the evidence. Such are the sceptics who deny everything. Hidebound in their prejudice, they ignore the fact that magic, White or Black, has now as many adepts as ever. Many persons are duped by charlatans so the sceptics persuade themselves of the absolute non-existence of diabolical practices in modern times. They are wrong. For occultims flourishes now in Europe, Asia, and America."
Click to expand...
lol evidence
 
I don't think I'll be reading this. But, I googled Lady Queensborough and saw she was a facist which is interesting.

Ninae, can you provide more excerpts that will disuade me from my scepticism?
 
Last edited:
I've only read 20% of it yet. But it's pretty high-level esoterica and and has a lot of info on religion and occultism. Strange how so many can deny some of these things are going on when we have so many historical records of it.

It's more comprehensive than most similar stuff I've read, though. Most stuff just give a little tease and holds back a lot. Plus I found it interesting it was only printed for private circulation.
 
if there is actual evidence and "historical records", why don't esoterics bother to provide them?
 
THIS BOOK makes no claim to literary merit. It
is simply a work of research and documentation,
giving evidence and facts which I trust will
help the reader in drawing his own conclusions.
Click to expand...

Well, I tried.
 
"To deceive the peoples for the purposes of exploiting them, to enslave them and delay their progress, or prevent it even if possible, such is the crime of black magic."


I think I've seen enough of that at this point.
 
Last edited:
I'm wondering what you guys would think the difference between "sceptic" and "critical thinker" would be, and how would we differentiate the two?
 
^I don't know the difference. But I feeel like scepticism is often thought as reactionary disbelief, instantly not believing in propositions. For me, scepticism is the same as criticial thinking. For me, it is not enough for someone to simply tell me something is s fact; I want them to prove to me that it is a fact. I find the asking of questions more satisfying than the answers, in many ways.

I know that ninae thinks there are hardheaded materialists on this forum and I've tried to explain that scepticism is not closed-mindedness; it is the actual opposite. It is being open to all possibilities and only entertaining things as truth that are proven to be so.

Ninae said:
"To deceive the peoples for the purposes of exploiting them, to enslave them and delay their progress, or prevent it even if possible, such is the crime of black magic."


I think I've seen enough of that at this point.
Click to expand...

Are you being ironic/sarcastic? That is the same argument I would put forward against all those channels and stuff you used to post nin.
 
Ninae, thanks for sharign. It reminds me of the series of books "Man Myth & Magic" published in the 1970s. MMM covered the same topics but was published in encyclopedia format.

There's nothign wrong with being skeptical. There are so many charlatans that everyone should use their skeptical common sense.
 
It's not that there's anything wrong with being sceptical or that there has to be a fight between scepticism and spirituality, you just like to make it out to be. But scepticism isn't always about enlightening people, either, it can also be about keeping them in spiritual darkness.

I just don't relate to the attitude that you have to take side or identify with one side. There is right and wrong in both, so I don't see why you would want to. I'm more interested in the truth than my side winning or anything like that, that doesn't really matter in the big picture.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about healthy scepticism, but the kind that's more like wilful ignorance.
 
Scepticism has nothing to do with enlightening people, its about questioning. But when you question a belief held dear to someone, that someone may react defensively as if its personal.

Wilful ignorance is found on both sides.

I mean, ninae, you could be wrong... Do you examine extraordinary claims with the rigour they require?
 
Without trying to sound harsh, but the general argument for the supernatural goes something like this "it's written in a famous book (a la das Bible), and many people believe it, so open your eyes (forget the evidence, the book is the evidence) and believe it!"

Skeptics or critical thinkers, whichever you want to call them, just wish to see real proof. Your own subjective experiences that you cannot reproduce do not count as proof. I talked to god yesterday. Really, I did.

As swilow said, skepticism is about questioning. It's the opposite of blind belief, and it's the wish to believe in something if there is evidence supporting it whether you like it or not. The last part is very important. Due to certain evidence in science, I have to believe in things that don't make me comfortable, but that's the harshness of our reality. It is what it is no matter if we like it or not.

E: from what reading experience I've had with (mainly religious-background literature), the appeal is emotional. It just goes like "open your eyes and you will see the evidence". :-/
 
I thought we were calling skepticism scepticism for the lols.

Skepticism is percieved by the easily convinced as "pessimistic disbelief because it is a change in the preconception of understanding something", to an extent.

If I were emotionally invested in something, I wouldn't appreciate a skeptic, but that is just how it works.

However, the simple truth is that I'm a skeptic, and if you show me solid evidence of the paranormal or supernatural, I'll be less skeptical.

The supernatural I feel is prone to not being able to cough up good evidence, but some of the things I've seen has been awfully hard to disregard. Maybe a question like, "Why should I accept this as evidence?" should be asked in place of "What the fuck is this? This isn't evidence."

That is if you're a willing, objective skeptic. But the whole art is dependent on nkt becoming emotional and learning when something can or can't be debunked.

My apologies if I make no sense. Codeine and Melatonin = holy sh*t I'm tired.
 
I can think of one example which may differentiate the two.

There seems to be a clear difference between critically thinking about something like, say, climate change and thinking about the supernatural.

There is substantial evidence for anthropogenic climate change, yet there is none for the "supernatural"

So, to be clear, one who denies climate change could be referred to as a sceptic, while one who denies the existence of the supernatural would be a critical thinker.

That's the difference in my opinion, as subjective as it may be.
 
Nixiam said:
Codeine and Melatonin = holy sh*t I'm tired.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm on hefty doses of both codeine (1 g) and nifoxipam (8 mg) that I'm having a hard time keeping my eyes open let alone focused on one point. However, I would say this. I have experienced phenomena I cannot logically explain using my scientific knowledge. Like extreme coincidences, which may seem like somebody higher than me is guiding my life path. And minor inexplicable phenomena such as things moving around and so on. I do have irrational fear of ghosts and the like, but my rational mind just laughs at me. It is a god question. You can believe it or you can not believe it - there is lack of evidence either way. But what is most important, there is lack of evidence supporting the idea. If you cannot support an idea, then why believe it other than it making you emotionally comfortable?

Sorry if I'm rambling.

Vagina Lover said:
So, to be clear, one who denies climate change could be referred to as a sceptic, while one who denies the existence of the supernatural would be a critical thinker.
Click to expand...

English is only my third language, so I'm not good with semantics, but wouldn't it be the other way around? A critical thinker would try to analyze a concept/idea thoroughly and not just go for the mainstream accepted idea, whereas a skeptic would be cautious in believing stuff that is just unfounded at all.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top