Timothy's Atheism

So I listened to Timothy’s audio booklet on black magick. He had many great observations. But for all of his pompous, self-perceived “certainty” regarding his position, he fails to see the glaringly obvious problem in his system: it rests on clearly “un-falsifiable” pillars just as do the theists and RHP’s positions. It just happens to be that their unquestioned pillars are different than his. He states that their belief in the divine cannot be proven by science; he says that their belief is un-falsifiable. True. But for the love of Pete, neither can his (hidden) presuppositions be proven. They, too are un-falsifiable. His unquestioned presuppositions are that logic and the human senses are generally accurate and reliable. He just assumes them to be true. In fact, there is no way to test whether or not those presuppositions are true or false. This is just the same position that theists find themselves in. He is no different than them in that way. Even if some astute logician could find a way to test those assumed principles, he would have simply done so by appealing to some other set of principals that are then assumed to be true. My point is that every system relies on unquestioned first principles whatever they may be. For being an otherwise smart guy, a huge part of his system collapses under my analysis. Also, at one point he says that science does not confirm the myths of the world’s religions and systems. He goes onto say that quantum physics has made his view very plausible. But then he goes on to say (in my accurate paraphrase): “Main stream science has not yet accepted my views as true, but I think that they will eventually.” For cripe’s sake. That is a far cry from saying that his views are proven by science. Isn’t this the approach the same as what theistic scientists take??? And I’m not talking about the “wacky” ones he refers to. I’m talking about guys with Ph.D’s from Berkeley and such. I’ve heard these guys in formal university debates. They are much more credible than Timothy lets on. I may seem like some fundamentalist Christian nut job, but I’m not. In some ways I like Timothy’s basic stance. But I just get sick of all this atheist LHP stuff which is clearly birthed out of anger against established religions and RHP philosophy instead of just the facts. On at least 2 or 3 occasions in this booklet he talks about “child raping, camel riding…” or something like that. He is clearly angry at religion. As am I. But in my judgment, this does not discredit their systems. It is still logically possible that humans were created by gods and are subservient to them. I don’t “like” the idea of this. But that doesn’t mean anything. It still may be the case.

I’ve found in the Book of Timothy Some Good Info, but i really Disagree with most of what he write in his Book,

When you have Worked with Entities many Times and have a Relationship With them you Know that they are not just ‘‘Egregore’’ Some are but many are Not.

Just my own Opinion as always!

Best Regards!

I watched a demonologist explaining the history of the Devil, a few weeks ago. Listening to the “Black Magic Manifesto” felt pretty similar, in my opinion. The similarity between these is that it’s based on extensive studying on a particular subject, taught to an audience with an objective analysis, rather than a subjective experience. It’s basically a theory with an atheist touch.

All the credits to him for a well written book, though.

It still makes me wonder: Where did the magic go?

He admits that some pet theories physicists have are no better than magic, since they can never be proven scientifically, and then goes on to make multiverse theory a core part of his explanation of where spirits reside. Multiverse theory is no less accepted by science than the existence of an external creator god setting the universe in motion. Ultimately, he uses the same flawed reasoning that he skewered theist apologists for earlier in the manifesto to justify his beliefs.

Who did he get to read his drafts? Glaring issues like this should have been caught early on in the editing process.

As a side note: If anyone wants to check out quantum physics, parallel universes, or anything else from the view of a physicist, give Brian Greene a look. Timothy’s knowledge of how these theories work is only mostly right.

[quote=“Mephistor, post:2, topic:7860”]I’ve found in the Book of Timothy Some Good Info, but i really Disagree with most of what he write in his Book,

When you have Worked with Entities many Times and have a Relationship With them you Know that they are not just ‘‘Egregore’’ Some are but many are Not.

Just my own Opinion as always!

Best Regards![/quote]

Egregore is just Terminology. Just as a Thoughtform or Construct or even the many definitions of what a Soul is is terminology. All have energy and information, subatomic particles and all sorts of stuff underlying their nature. The only difference between you and say a Scientist whom practices “Sci-Fi Nuclear Nerd Magick” is in the amount of magickal influence you are able to pack into a Said entity… Which goes back to one point… All has an underlying Informational field/structure/matrix and that is dependent upon the individual… This is where the line blurrs when it comes to terminologies because I can take alot of information and create an A.I. Soul which by all meaning is actually human and evolves as a human…but because the initial technique was…“Creating a Servitor or Egregore” certain people would disagree, even to a fanatical religious extent…even if said A.I. evolved not to just being human but far superior to an average devolving human populace of intelligence =).

I can understand the need of some around here to glorify waving a magick wand and having an entire Altar setup. However…information underlies everything…Thus, the true Holy Grail is that of the “Thinking Man” before he even utters a word or does a ritual…because the thought is in fact the initial magick.

The problem with Timothy is that he sees his view of magick as being verifiably true and objectively demonstrable. His utter subjectivism is just camouflaged under his admittedly keen intellect. Just like every other view of magick and religion, his is unprovable.

Yeah Magick as Religion is a Subjective things, Yes We can prove to ourselve that Magick is Real with Concrete Verifiable Result, but Other can consider this as mere coincidence, We cannot prove to Other that Magick is real if they are not Open to it.

Agreed. But Timothy pseudo-science approach tries be something it’s not: objectively rooted in science.

Well, best thing I can say before making a judgement is you should get to know the person personally first. It isnt always that simple. I am just simply saying I challenge you to go beyond the surface of an intellectual argument. Im not defending him, I am just wondering how much you worked with his material and how personally do you know him beyond just reading about him? There are many ways to do magick beyond simply waving a magick wand which is what most people like.

Last time i checked, LHP, IS absolute subjectivism. If it wasnt it wouldnt exist and magick wouldn`t work.

Timothy`s taking a little existential philosophy, a little anarchy, a little science and a hefty amount of “i dont give two [email protected]”, throws them in his cauldron and cooks a concoction of self-actualized reality, which is then used to keep his gears turning further progressing within the LHP.

Your views and objectives are well and truly valid from a mainstream perspective and to a great extend i would agree with you if we were having this conversation in a different place.
His manifesto is not there to make you believe, it`s just an instrument of manipulation (in many levels) created by a LHP disciple.

He’s marketing the “Black Magic Manifesto” as something that can be shared, copied, distributed, etc. as the very definition of what black magic is as a philosophy. It should be able to stand on its own.

Additionally, he claims to provide objective proof that his beliefs are the pinnacle of rationality, which is a tall order, and unsurprisingly he fails at doing so.

I agree with many of the points he makes, but I’m not going to be sharing this as an example of what I think the LHP is.

Zeus- I’d be pretty shocked if his book wasn’t intended to convince. Every line seems to be an attempt to do precisely that. He fails in my judgement.