LaVeyan Satanism

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

after the novel sized post you made? srs?

liah

It's fairly alright, if not very tongue-in-cheek, and the magic bit is a bit funky.

Which I find interesting. Satan as a representation of a collective force rather than a being. Only thing I hate is that stupid capitalization of "He," but that's a petty hate.

other than the whole magic thing, it seems relatively reasonable and not at all like the stereotype of Satanism and quite a lot more like simple Atheism with an anti-Christian targeted twist and a touch of narcissism.

Just figured I'd quote some bits of my oh-so-offensive original post.

As you can quite clearly read, I had no problem with LaVeyan satanism. I agreed with a lot of it and said so.

The main issue I have with Atheistic Satanism is the label it puts on the rest of us Atheists. Uneducated people (take the Bible belt in the States or that recent thread in PI for example) are going to make the association between Atheism and Satanism, they're not going to know the details, and they're immediately going to think fire, brimstone, human sacrifices and bloody crosses. That is not a good image for Atheism. You can go around calling them ignorant for not learning about your religion all you want, but who the hell has time to learn about every single denomination of every single religion out there? That is why I'm generally opposed to anything that "dresses up" Atheism and puts it in a nice, neat little religious package-- it goes against everything I stand for as an Atheist.

It doesn't appeal to me and I made that clear enough, but I was not being offensive in the slightest. Definitely not near offensive enough to be addressed like I was by Urizen after my only post.

Hivemind187

liah wrote: »

Just figured I'd quote some bits of my oh-so-offensive original post.

As you can quite clearly read, I had no problem with LaVeyan satanism. I agreed with a lot of it and said so.

The main issue I have with Atheistic Satanism is the label it puts on the rest of us Atheists. Uneducated people (take the Bible belt in the States or that recent thread in PI for example) are going to make the association between Atheism and Satanism, they're not going to know the details, and they're immediately going to think fire, brimstone, human sacrifices and bloody crosses. That is not a good image for Atheism. You can go around calling them ignorant for not learning about your religion all you want, but who the hell has time to learn about every single denomination of every single religion out there? That is why I'm generally opposed to anything that "dresses up" Atheism and puts it in a nice, neat little religious package-- it goes against everything I stand for as an Atheist.

It doesn't appeal to me and I made that clear enough, but I was not being offensive in the slightest. Definitely not near offensive enough to be addressed like I was by Urizen after my only post.

Uh-huh. You're jumping down the throat of one group because another group thinks it makes your group sound scary.

... does that seem entirely rational to you?

Frankly, you are more an amusement than anything else Liah, you're jumping up and down saying "how dare you misquopte me and take me out of context" when that is precisely what you did to Satanism and to myself. It's actually rather comical.

For your benefit I will point out that I asked you to read a few posts in the thread you started.

Do you get that? Its the thread YOU started. These are posts YOU have generated. Thats really all you had to do. Instead you are throwing your toys out of the pram in a desperate attempt to win-by-submission in the great keyboard arena.

Atheists, by the nature of their label, are connected by only a single fact: They dont believe in a supernatural or personal god. Beyond this fact there are as many personal philosophies, politics, personal beliefs and ethics as there are atheists. Satanists, by and large, have no belief in the supernatural nor in a personal god beyond that of a metaphor for ones self. Therefore, whether you like it or not, they are atheists. Just no more representative of atheists as a whole than any other individual atheist.

I would reccomend going back and reading those posts. You'll note the names of those redressing Urizen's post that you had such a problem with. If you can't handle a little personal criticism then perhaps you shouldnt be involving yourself in discussions of this calibre?

liah

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Uh-huh. You're jumping down the throat of one group because another group thinks it makes your group sound scary.

... does that seem entirely rational to you?

Frankly, you are more an amusement than anything else Liah, you're jumping up and down saying "how dare you misquopte me and take me out of context" when that is precisely what you did to Satanism and to myself. It's actually rather comical.

For your benefit I will point out that I asked you to read a few posts in the thread you started.

Do you get that? Its the thread YOU started. These are posts YOU have generated. Thats really all you had to do. Instead you are throwing your toys out of the pram in a desperate attempt to win-by-submission in the great keyboard arena.

Atheists, by the nature of their label, are connected by only a single fact: They dont believe in a supernatural or personal god. Beyond this fact there are as many personal philosophies, politics, personal beliefs and ethics as there are atheists. Satanists, by and large, have no belief in the supernatural nor in a personal god beyond that of a metaphor for ones self. Therefore, whether you like it or not, they are atheists. Just no more representative of atheists as a whole than any other individual atheist.

I would reccomend going back and reading those posts. You'll note the names of those redressing Urizen's post that you had such a problem with. If you can't handle a little personal criticism then perhaps you shouldnt be involving yourself in discussions of this calibre?

You're joking, right?

I wasn't the one jumping down people's throats. I stated an inoffensive position that someone got completely worked up about for no reason. I then question why he got so defensive, and then you proceed to become more defensive. I was simply trying to lay out things in a crystal clear manner so nobody could possibly take it for more than what it is, but alas, you've outdone yourself trying to make mountains out of molehills yet again. Bravo.

I'm also finding it odd how you keep saying I need to read posts by other people, while stating that it was the thread that I started.. Yes; I started it. Funny thing is, the comments that were found to be offensive were in the original post. Am I supposed to time travel, read the posts that would be written in retaliation to my original, then time travel back again to revise it and make it as PoliticallyCorrect™ as possible? Give me a break. My original post was my ONLY POST til I had to explain to you why I wrote my original post. Notice how I haven't made any indication regarding anything else I've learned from reading the thread, because it is wholly irrelevant-- my entire issue was with how I was treated for being completely inoffensive. I haven't even begun to address the rest of the thread yet.

And your definition of Atheism is misguided. Down to the very root of the word, atheism isn't necessarily the disbelief in the supernatural or gods; it's the lack of religion, full stop. Thus, Satanism + Atheism = does not compute. Satanism is a religion. Atheism literally means "without religion." One can be spiritual while being an Atheist. One can believe in a greater power while being an Atheist. One cannot follow a religion while being an Atheist.

Hivemind187

liah wrote: »

You're joking, right?

I wasn't the one jumping down people's throats. I stated an inoffensive position that someone got completely worked up about for no reason. I then question why he got so defensive, and then you proceed to become more defensive. I was simply trying to lay out things in a crystal clear manner so nobody could possibly take it for more than what it is, but alas, you've outdone yourself trying to make mountains out of molehills yet again. Bravo.

I'm also finding it odd how you keep saying I need to read posts by other people, while stating that it was the thread that I started.. Yes; I started it. Funny thing is, the comments that were found to be offensive were in the original post. Am I supposed to time travel, read the posts that would be written in retaliation to my original, then time travel back again to revise it and make it as PoliticallyCorrect™ as possible? Give me a break. My original post was my ONLY POST til I had to explain to you why I wrote my original post. Notice how I haven't made any indication regarding anything else I've learned from reading the thread, because it is wholly irrelevant-- my entire issue was with how I was treated for being completely inoffensive. I haven't even begun to address the rest of the thread yet.

And your definition of Atheism is misguided. Down to the very root of the word, atheism isn't necessarily the disbelief in the supernatural or gods; it's the lack of religion, full stop. Thus, Satanism + Atheism = does not compute. Satanism is a religion. Atheism literally means "without religion." One can be spiritual while being an Atheist. One can believe in a greater power while being an Atheist. One cannot follow a religion while being an Atheist.

Its a pity, you are probably a really nice person in real life, its just you are coming off as a highly strung, self righteous anthropomorphic migraine right now.

I'll help you out here because as much as I am enjoying you exhibiting precisely the behaviors you have criticised in others it suits my purposes to do so.

Your principal errors are;

1) You display no willingness to accept that something you said may have upset someone yet you demand that no one treat you in a similar way.
2) You have formed reductionist opinions and expressed them while openly admiting that you have no more than a passing familiarity with the subject.
3) You have openly stated that you have not read the rest of the thread and apparently care not to.
4) You are having an argument with someone who went to bat on your behalf.

Evidence is as follows;

liah wrote: »

Found LaVeyan satanism, and to be honest it just seems like a Goth's version of Atheism, simply putting on the Satanism tag to appear "dark" or whatever the whole Goth appeal is, and then magic thrown into the mix for the hell of it.

You honestly dont see how that is dismissive, reductive and potentially insulting? I have insulted a lot of religions and doctrines so I know it when I see it, this looks an awful lot like it.

I'm personally not bothered by it but can you see why someone else may feel attacked or reduced?

liah wrote: »

I'm not sure what to think of this. I think Atheists parading around under the guise of Satanism for the sake of Gothic appeal can really only give Atheism a bad image and lead to more confusion. Might actually explain a lot about why so many Christians think Atheism and Satanism are one and the same, when in most cases they're not.

A ridiculous conclusion that removes the responsibility of being a jerk from christians and places it on the shoulders of the Satanist. Your conclusion shows you have only a passing familiarity and is no better than concluding that the jews run all the banks after reading a right-wing web page.

It is also inconsistant with your own analysis previous to this where you stated

liah wrote: »

Again, other than the whole magic thing, it seems relatively reasonable and not at all like the stereotype of Satanism and quite a lot more like simple Atheism with an anti-Christian targeted twist and a touch of narcissism.

Which is quite a good summary of the philosophy in a "nuts and bolts" kind of way.

Post 15 explains much of the stuff folks tend not to get upon first contact with the philosophy and would do you well to read as a condensed and accurate explanation (that I wrote it notwithstanding). Posts 16,17,18 and 19 continue the discussion very well, expanding on some aspects.

Post 29 is where Urizen gets a little upset and vents his/her frustration. He is set stright in posts 30 and 31. He/she kicks off again a little in post 35 which I dealt with in post 36.

Urizen relaxed and seems to have had a change of heart from all out indignation to contemplating the actual progress made in gaining a better acceptance in post 37.

In post 43. You return and lay into Urizen who has already dropped the matter and hopefully learned not to be so quick to "smash the other cheek" in favor of getting to the root of the problem before deciding whether its worth verbally battering someone. It has to be said, you were a little late to the party by some 23 and a half hours. More than enough time to read back 5 posts.

Should I continue answering your declarations and accusations or do you get what I am trying to point out to you?

liah

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Its a pity, you are probably a really nice person in real life, its just you are coming off as a highly strung, self righteous anthropomorphic migraine right now.

I'll help you out here because as much as I am enjoying you exhibiting precisely the behaviors you have criticised in others it suits my purposes to do so.

Your principal errors are;

1) You display no willingness to accept that something you said may have upset someone yet you demand that no one treat you in a similar way.
2) You have formed reductionist opinions and expressed them while openly admiting that you have no more than a passing familiarity with the subject.
3) You have openly stated that you have not read the rest of the thread and apparently care not to.
4) You are having an argument with someone who went to bat on your behalf.

Evidence is as follows;



You honestly dont see how that is dismissive, reductive and potentially insulting? I have insulted a lot of religions and doctrines so I know it when I see it, this looks an awful lot like it.

I'm personally not bothered by it but can you see why someone else may feel attacked or reduced?



A ridiculous conclusion that removes the responsibility of being a jerk from christians and places it on the shoulders of the Satanist. Your conclusion shows you have only a passing familiarity and is no better than concluding that the jews run all the banks after reading a right-wing web page.

It is also inconsistant with your own analysis previous to this where you stated



Which is quite a good summary of the philosophy in a "nuts and bolts" kind of way.

Post 15 explains much of the stuff folks tend not to get upon first contact with the philosophy and would do you well to read as a condensed and accurate explanation (that I wrote it notwithstanding). Posts 16,17,18 and 19 continue the discussion very well, expanding on some aspects.

Post 29 is where Urizen gets a little upset and vents his/her frustration. He is set stright in posts 30 and 31. He/she kicks off again a little in post 35 which I dealt with in post 36.

Urizen relaxed and seems to have had a change of heart from all out indignation to contemplating the actual progress made in gaining a better acceptance in post 37.

In post 43. You return and lay into Urizen who has already dropped the matter and hopefully learned not to be so quick to "smash the other cheek" in favor of getting to the root of the problem before deciding whether its worth verbally battering someone. It has to be said, you were a little late to the party by some 23 and a half hours. More than enough time to read back 5 posts.

Should I continue answering your declarations and accusations or do you get what I am trying to point out to you?

And you aren't? Self-delusion is a beautiful thing.

I'm willing to accept people may be offended by offensive things. Unfortunately, that wasn't an offensive thing.

I think the major misunderstanding here is that we're talking on two entirely different terms, or at least that's what I've gathered from your rather incoherent and consistently off-topic ramblings.

When I'm talking about Satanism giving Atheism a bad name, I mean the perceived notion of Satanism. I don't give a damn about the denomination of Satanism, the teachings, whatever the hell you like. I'm saying that people hear the word Satanist and they are going to think the worst. If Atheists start going around saying they're Satanists to "stick it" to the proverbial Christian "man," it's only going to do worse for the Atheist reputation which is currently on incredibly shaky ground as it is. Pairing it with perceived devil-worship is only going to worsen things for the rest of us.

Do you understand, or am I going to have to keep simplifying until I'm basically writing a children's novel?

Again, really don't give a damn about the rest of the thread because that is not what any of this is about, so I've really no clue why you're referencing posts made AFTER my original comment while attacking the original comment-- do I really have to break down the fact that I can't time-travel again? Seriously?

Use your brain, please, and try to focus on the topic at hand.

I'm actually starting to wonder if you've read a single thing I've said, and if you're confusing someone else with me.

Dades

I'm not entirely sure what a "highly strung, self righteous anthropomorphic migraine" is, but it sounds suspiciously like an insult.

Careful now, Hivemind.

Rev Hellfire

liah wrote: »

When I'm talking about Satanism giving Atheism a bad name

tbh I don't see many people associating atheism with Satanism (Le Veyan or not).

People are either going to assume its some new-age stuff and automatically disassociate atheism with it, just as paganism in general is. Or classify is as yet more egocentric psychobabble and dismiss it off hand as general wackiness.

Either way its doesn't affect atheism one iota. Storm met teacup.

stevejazzx

I know nothing about this
so...be gentle

Satan means self?

He uses the word Satan and not self because he is parodying the church?

Some of the rules use the expression 'destroy them etc' - is this literal?

The magic stuff is also allegorical?

I can't criticize it because it's actually rather good? How?

What in the fudge is going on? Has everyone lost hold of their critical faculties? This movement or however it is classified sounds like a mess.
And yes yes everyone is ignorant for jumping to conclusions...What is with the schoolboy tantrums whenever someone has an initial reaction to it? I mean after all if you've never heard of it, it's confusing and seems to promote notions of the self which ego centric and violent.
Is the promotion of physical aggression actually meant or not? How do we know what is meant and what is not meant particularly in relation to the magic bit again? I imagined people here tried not to follow stuff?
What the fudge people, what the fudge?

Again let me draw attention to my opening disclaimer before a convert lampoons my corrosive ignorance. Maybe someone can just answer the questions I ask, I do ask them earnestly but I'm sure from my tone you can tell that I'm not buying it.

Hivemind187

stevejazzx wrote: »

I know nothing about this
so...be gentle

Satan means self?

In a sense yes. The icon of Satan is invoked in a kind of Plato-esque metaphor. An ideal so to speak.

stevejazzx wrote: »

He uses the word Satan and not self because he is parodying the church?

Less parody than outright criticism and non=involved-adversarialism (I think I may have just coined a phraze there). The point is that coming from the background of western religion it is natural to use the standards of that society as a measure of what you are rejecting. The choice of "Satan" could as easily have been any of a dozen other mythological entities but it is in this case a perfect choice since the derivation of the word "Satan" comes from teh hebrew "Shaitan" or literally "accuser".

stevejazzx wrote: »

Some of the rules use the expression 'destroy them etc' - is this literal?

Depends on the context. If someone is actively looking to kill you then yes. If someone is actively causing your trouble at work or in a relationship the objective is either to obliterate the threat by an intellectual process (undermining their position etc) or by removing any emotional barriers you will have set up for yourself by percieving such a threat - it neednt be physical violence, in fact that would be largely a stupid move since the repercussion for you would be unprofitable. the idea is that if you divest yourself of concern for the individual you are in effect "destroying" them in your personal reality. they cease to be an impediment to you doing what it is that you have set your mind to. I.e. it makes it easier to step over the other person to get what you want.

stevejazzx wrote: »

The magic stuff is also allegorical?

Nope. Its practical.

Applied psychology and deliberately pushing yourself into a deeper emotional state. The principals behind this are well understood by psychologists (I admit my own understanding of the precise mechanism is a little vague). Here the idea is to invoke a kind of self hypnotism wherein you will either divest yourself of negative emotions or generate positive ones.

For most people it is done in the complete knowledge that there is no supernatural power (regardless of what LeVay may have said in later years trying to generate notoriety for himself). The whole thing is a personal pantomime really.

stevejazzx wrote: »

I can't criticize it because it's actually rather good? How?

Not sure what this sentence means.

Of course you can criticise, its as open to criticism as any other philosophical system. Criticism however invites counter criticism and explanation.

stevejazzx wrote: »

What in the fudge is going on? Has everyone lost hold of their critical faculties? This movement or however it is classified sounds like a mess.

This is unnecessary. What are you getting at?

stevejazzx wrote: »

And yes yes everyone is ignorant for jumping to conclusions...

Apparently so...

stevejazzx wrote: »

What is with the schoolboy tantrums whenever someone has an initial reaction to it?

Mr. Pot? This is Mr. Kettle. Have you met?

There is immaturity on both sides. The first lies with those jumping to the conclusion - intellectually and critically failing. The second lies with those getting overlyannoyed or upset when confronted with the aforementioned failing.

Caveat to this however is that a single individual has only so much patience before they eventaully begin to crack. Gay, blacks, atheists ... at a certain point the ignorance and stereotyping behavior of others will begin to overcome ones "cool".

stevejazzx wrote: »

I mean after all if you've never heard of it, it's confusing and seems to promote notions of the self which ego centric and violent.

Whats wrong with something being ego centric about enlightened self interest?

Confusing? I honestly dont get this, there is very little room for confusion in the text. Its pretty plain english and requires only a small ammount metaphorical comprehension.

As for it being violent ... heh ... come on ... as opposed to what? Radical Islam? Christian Fundamentalism? When was the last time you heard of a dictators ethnic cleansing policies being put down to his (notably all male arent they?) adherence to a self-aware theatrical philosophy?

stevejazzx wrote: »

Is the promotion of physical aggression actually meant or not? How do we know what is meant and what is not meant particularly in relation to the magic bit again? I imagined people here tried not to follow stuff?
What the fudge people, what the fudge?

You could try reading the posts or doing some research to alleviate your confusion. I find it helps and it more satisfying than demanding that all the answers be given to you on a drip feed.

also ... its a little weird to demand answers a second time in the same post. Its like a quantum fallacy - no one has had a chance to answer yet.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Again let me draw attention to my opening disclaimer before a convert lampoons my corrosive ignorance. Maybe someone can just answer the questions I ask, I do ask them earnestly but I'm sure from my tone you can tell that I'm not buying it.

Buying what? No one is selling anything.

You dont like it, dont get it, dont understand it, can't be bothered with it, doesnt work for you as a personal philosophy, take issue with it etc etc etc ... then leave it alone. Wheres the beef?

Zillah

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

I really regret not supported the satanism forum on feedback now so that this retarded **** would be kept somewhere else.

for gods sake people, satanism? how daring.

Care to expand on that? I think it's quite a fascinating philosophy, not sure why you're being so petulant about it.

Zillah

Dades wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure what a "highly strung, self righteous anthropomorphic migraine" is, but it sounds suspiciously like an insult.

Careful now, Hivemind.

"Quite frankly I avoid prosecution through sheer baffling verbosity".

liah

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

tbh I don't see many people associating atheism with Satanism (Le Veyan or not).

People are either going to assume its some new-age stuff and automatically disassociate atheism with it, just as paganism in general is. Or classify is as yet more egocentric psychobabble and dismiss it off hand as general wackiness.

Either way its doesn't affect atheism one iota. Storm met teacup.

You would be surprised. I know a lot of people who automatically assume Satanism when they hear Atheism, encountered it a lot in the States and online. It's a bit naïve to assume it doesn't affect Atheism at all, I reckon you could find an awful lot of Catholics here who think they're one and the same, too.

People can be a lot dumber than you give them credit for.

Rev Hellfire

liah wrote: »

You would be surprised. I know a lot of people who automatically assume Satanism when they hear Atheism, encountered it a lot in the States and online. It's a bit naïve to assume it doesn't affect Atheism at all, I reckon you could find an awful lot of Catholics here who think they're one and the same, too.

People can be a lot dumber than you give them credit for.

So in effect you're saying atheism should be concerned because some people are too stupid to understand the single defining concept involved, ie. no god(s)?

That says more about them than it does about atheism in my view.

Would you care to elaborate how in any real tangible way their views impact on atheism ?

liah

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

So in effect you're saying atheism should be concerned because some people are too stupid to understand the single defining concept involved, ie. no god(s)?

That says more about them than it does about atheism in my view.

Would you care to elaborate how in any real tangible way their views impact on atheism ?

It's not just "some people," it's one hell of a lot of people. Would you not be concerned that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people are spreading the idea that Atheism is devil worship?

I've not lived here long so I've no idea about the impact here so maybe in this country there's no reason to be concerned, but in North America it's incredibly damaging. The flak Atheists take because of quasi-Atheists parading around with the title of Satanism is astounding. Regardless of what type of Satanism they're subscribed to, it doesn't change the original idea and most people are going to look no further than the title, because that's enough to scare them into thinking all Atheists are the same. I've witnessed it on many, many occasions, and it's not something to be taken lightly.

Atheists have enough trouble as it is, for Satanists to go around equating Atheism with their religion is only going to make it worse, and that's exactly what they're doing-- it will not end well.

Again, since this stems from the thread in PI I'll reference it again: an Irish Catholic was scared of his friend because his friend said "Satanism and Atheism are the only two things that make sense to him," thus placing Atheism and Satanism on the same level and leading the poster to be afraid of him. The first few comments in the same post were saying he basically had every right to be scared because of rituals and bloody sacrifices and all that rot. Do you really want that to be the image of Atheism?

It's like how most Christians hate the Westboro Baptist Church (Fred Phelps and company). It gives a bad image about the religion itself because it equates itself to the overall image of Christianity, when it couldn't be further from what Christianity truly preaches-- peace and acceptance. Just like Satanism couldn't be further from what Atheism is about-- a total lack of religion and ceremony (spirituality doesn't equate into the basic definition of atheism).

You can decry the ignorance of others all you want and say it's their fault for not learning, but that doesn't change anything. Of course it's not our faults others are ignorant. I get that. But the least we could do is disassociate ourselves from Satanism to get that bad rep off our backs, not join the two, it only makes the image more fearsome when what we really need is people to appear sensible and level-headed, not appear like people with a vendetta against Christianity sacrificing goats under a full moon, regardless of whether or not that happens. It's still the conclusion most people are going to jump to, whether you like it or not.

Rev Hellfire

liah wrote: »

It's not just "some people," it's one hell of a lot of people. Would you not be concerned that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people are spreading the idea that Atheism is devil worship?

Can't say I'd be unduly concerned. Its no different than fuddies saying that Hinduism, Buddhism,etc are really worshipping the devil. They might believe it, they might profess it from on high, but no one is buying what they're selling (at least here in good 'ol Ireland).

liah wrote: »

I've not lived here long so I've no idea about the impact here so maybe in this country there's no reason to be concerned, but in North America it's incredibly damaging.

I'm happy to conceed the point that Americans are *ahem* special.

liah wrote: »

The flak Atheists take because of quasi-Atheists parading around with the title of Satanism is astounding. Regardless of what type of Satanism they're subscribed to, it doesn't change the original idea and most people are going to look no further than the title, because that's enough to scare them into thinking all Atheists are the same. I've witnessed it on many, many occasions, and it's not something to be taken lightly.

It seems odd to me that people would associate a 'religion' which believes in the devil and by extension a god which a belief in no gods.

liah wrote: »

Again, since this stems from the thread in PI I'll reference it again: an Irish Catholic was scared of his friend because his friend said "Satanism and Atheism are the only two things that make sense to him," thus placing Atheism and Satanism on the same level and leading the poster to be afraid of him. The first few comments in the same post were saying he basically had every right to be scared because of rituals and bloody sacrifices and all that rot. Do you really want that to be the image of Atheism?

One swallow doesn't make a summer.

liah wrote: »

You can decry the ignorance of others all you want and say it's their fault for not learning, but that doesn't change anything. Of course it's not our faults others are ignorant. I get that. But the least we could do is disassociate ourselves from Satanism to get that bad rep off our backs, not join the two, it only makes the image more fearsome when what we really need is people to appear sensible and level-headed, not appear like people with a vendetta against Christianity sacrificing goats under a full moon, regardless of whether or not that happens. It's still the conclusion most people are going to jump to, whether you like it or not.

The thing is no one takes this stuff seriously, at least no one worth considering. If you spent your life worrying what every fruit-bat thought of you you'd get nowhere.

liah

I agree with you overall, but it's not like it's just a couple people. Like I said, I've no idea what it's like here, but it's a real problem back in North America. Cause of a lot of abuse, physical and emotional, and a lot of oppression and misinformation when that's the last thing we need. A lot of the dirty south of the States is completely brainwashed into believing Atheists work for the devil, they raise their kids with the same beliefs, the kids move on, start families elsewhere, so on, so forth, so it goes.

Not good, imo. Not good at all, especially when we're finally starting to get ourselves taken seriously, it's all being ripped apart from the inside.

Hivemind187

So you're answer is to separate yourself from Satanists.

OK.

What about Humanists? They have ceremonies. Better distance yourself from them too.

What about agnostics? Well they dont believe in organised religions but they have doubts over the existance of god rather than outright disbelief. Better distance yourself from them to so that no one gets the wrong impression.

do you have jewish friends? Catholic friends? Muslim friends? Gay friends? Black friends? Irish friends?

All of the above have been declared in the service of the devil or devil worshippers by some crowd of whackos at some point in history.

Frankly the most dangerous person there is on this topic is you. You are expounding on the subject as fact when it is entirely your opinion.

It is nothing more than reinforcing the position that Satanism is detrimental by validating their irrational belief. Saying that atheists should separate themselves from anyone indicates that they are somehow "undesireable" because of the connotations placed on their ideas by religious people - people who will assume atheists are evil with or without reference to the CoS.

Furthermore, your declaration that Satanism is not Athiesm is an opinion - not a fact. Continuing to say so belies an astounding ignorance on your part and an immense arrogance - precisely the same failing you accuse religious fundamentalist of when they call Atheism devil worship.

From the dictionary

A-the-ism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I'll say this again, clearly, Satanism is a personal philosophy which caters to the emotional need for dogma, ritual and ceremony in the full knowledge that such things are engaged in only for their benefit to the individual and not out of any belief in the supernatural. There is no belief in a diety. There is no belief in actual supernatural occurance. There is only the development of the self and the holding of the self in the highest regard.

It is a personal philosophy that happens to be atheistic.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

and the naming of your philosophies after the enemy of God. that's definitely very mature.

Hivemind187

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

and the naming of your philosophies after the enemy of God. that's definitely very mature.

A bit like naming yourself after the posterior of a fictional captain?

Glass houses and all Mord...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I'm not writing an epic piece of literature defending my nick though, am I.

also, I didn't choose this greatness it was thrust upon me.

Hivemind187

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

I'm not writing an epic piece of literature defending my nick though, am I.

also, I didn't choose this greatness it was thrust upon me.

This should help.

NALA.

They can even teach you the big words so as you wont feel left out anymore.

liah

Hivemind187 wrote: »

So you're answer is to separate yourself from Satanists.

OK.

What about Humanists? They have ceremonies. Better distance yourself from them too.

What about agnostics? Well they dont believe in organised religions but they have doubts over the existance of god rather than outright disbelief. Better distance yourself from them to so that no one gets the wrong impression.

do you have jewish friends? Catholic friends? Muslim friends? Gay friends? Black friends? Irish friends?

All of the above have been declared in the service of the devil or devil worshippers by some crowd of whackos at some point in history.

Frankly the most dangerous person there is on this topic is you. You are expounding on the subject as fact when it is entirely your opinion.

It is nothing more than reinforcing the position that Satanism is detrimental by validating their irrational belief. Saying that atheists should separate themselves from anyone indicates that they are somehow "undesireable" because of the connotations placed on their ideas by religious people - people who will assume atheists are evil with or without reference to the CoS.

Furthermore, your declaration that Satanism is not Athiesm is an opinion - not a fact. Continuing to say so belies an astounding ignorance on your part and an immense arrogance - precisely the same failing you accuse religious fundamentalist of when they call Atheism devil worship.

I'll say this again, clearly, Satanism is a personal philosophy which caters to the emotional need for dogma, ritual and ceremony in the full knowledge that such things are engaged in only for their benefit to the individual and not out of any belief in the supernatural. There is no belief in a diety. There is no belief in actual supernatural occurance. There is only the development of the self and the holding of the self in the highest regard.

Sigh, you still don't get it.

Humanists as a group aren't wilfully perceived as goat-sacrificing, evil people obsessed with all things horrible and bad, murder, torture, etc. Neither are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, gays or agnostics. Neither of the aforementioned religions or sects draw upon a need to betray the greater good, now, do they? But that's essentially what's implied in the title of Satanism by the common definition and perception of Satan.

You still don't understand the fact that I'm talking about how people perceive Satanism, and not how I perceive Satanism, do you? Jesus.

You can explain it to me all you please, but the problem is it doesn't change a thing-- I already understand Satanism just fine, what my point is is that not very many other people do. It's naught to do with the fact that they do ceremonies. It's the fact that the ceremonies perceived to be done are horrible and violent and bloody.

Hell, I don't even understand why Satanists themselves want to be associated with such a reputation. Really, as has been discussed, the reason for being a Satanist is to go against the Christian doctrine about worshipping the sky-daddy, to promote a sense of self, and it is apparently greatly Atheistic (despite the root of the word meaning "lack of religion"), why on earth would you want the general populace to perceive you that way? What's so wrong with.. well, being a humanist? Or just not following anything at all, and being content in your own beliefs without feeling like you have to conform to something?

Despite all your protestations about ignorance, people are just like that. They are always going to perceive Satanism as a horrible thing. And that comes from the root of your bloody religion's title. You can't possibly blame them for being ignorant parading around under a name like that. If you want ceremony and all that rot, why does it have to be all "Hail Satan?" You KNOW how that will come across, don't you dare blame me for it.

I'm not a humanist, by the way. I don't really feel the need to subscribe to anything, I'm content with my own moral code, and if I want ceremony in my life then I create it for myself in the form of traditions that owe nothing to anyone but myself.

Zillah

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

and the naming of your philosophies after the enemy of God. that's definitely very mature.

I think it's real classy the way you ignored my post where I asked if you'd elaborate, and instead posted yet another vapid hit and run attack.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well i'm not really paying attention to the thread, and vapid hit and run attacks are kinda my thing

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Zillah wrote: »

Care to expand on that? I think it's quite a fascinating philosophy, not sure why you're being so petulant about it.

basically because it's a religion, if you want a religion we have thousands already on the books there is no need to go around starting new ones. Especially not new ones named after the grand lord of evil in christianity, the great western religion. It's ****ing retarded. Why name it after satan if you're not going for some kind of emo reaction from christians. Satan is their guy, they own him and trying to appropriate him just smacks of trying to be leet, or whatever the emo version of leet is.

/wrists

Hivemind187

liah wrote: »

Sigh, you still don't get it.

Humanists as a group aren't wilfully perceived as goat-sacrificing, evil people obsessed with all things horrible and bad, murder, torture, etc. Neither are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, gays or agnostics. Neither of the aforementioned religions or sects draw upon a need to betray the greater good, now, do they? But that's essentially what's implied in the title of Satanism by the common definition and perception of Satan.

You still don't understand the fact that I'm talking about how people perceive Satanism, and not how I perceive Satanism, do you? Jesus.

You can explain it to me all you please, but the problem is it doesn't change a thing-- I already understand Satanism just fine, what my point is is that not very many other people do. It's naught to do with the fact that they do ceremonies. It's the fact that the ceremonies perceived to be done are horrible and violent and bloody.

Hell, I don't even understand why Satanists themselves want to be associated with such a reputation. Really, as has been discussed, the reason for being a Satanist is to go against the Christian doctrine about worshipping the sky-daddy, to promote a sense of self, and it is apparently greatly Atheistic (despite the root of the word meaning "lack of religion"), why on earth would you want the general populace to perceive you that way? What's so wrong with.. well, being a humanist? Or just not following anything at all, and being content in your own beliefs without feeling like you have to conform to something?

Despite all your protestations about ignorance, people are just like that. They are always going to perceive Satanism as a horrible thing. And that comes from the root of your bloody religion's title. You can't possibly blame them for being ignorant parading around under a name like that. If you want ceremony and all that rot, why does it have to be all "Hail Satan?" You KNOW how that will come across, don't you dare blame me for it.

I'm not a humanist, by the way. I don't really feel the need to subscribe to anything, I'm content with my own moral code, and if I want ceremony in my life then I create it for myself in the form of traditions that owe nothing to anyone but myself.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah...

Again, I challenge you:

YOU are the worst of the problem because YOU validate such ignorance by demanding that others change their ways to make themselves more palettable to the ignorant.

It is no different than walking into Harlem and saying "You know, if you were whiter you wouldnt get half the flak you get now"

Or walking into a gay pride meeting and demanding "Look, stop having the man-sex, thats why people are shouting at you and beating you in the streets - Gawd, its like soooo obvious you know!".

All of your commentary would suggest that you can't actually back up your claim that you "understand stanism".

So far your failures have been

1) You display no willingness to accept that something you said may have upset someone yet you demand that no one treat you in a similar way.
2) You have formed reductionist opinions and expressed them while openly admiting that you have no more than a passing familiarity with the subject.
3) You have openly stated that you have not read the rest of the thread and apparently care not to.
4) You are having an argument with someone who went to bat on your behalf.
5) Continuing to expound your opinions as fact.
6) Use of "the argument from personal experience" as a jusitfier for those opinions being fact.
7) Continuing wilfull ignorance with the unbelievable claim that you infact know what you are talking about.
8) Hypocricy.
9) The validation of those you are criticising (religious loonies).
10) Outright refusing to aknowledge any information or to expand your knowledge "Explain it to me all you want ..."
11) Inconsistency "I undertand ..." later one saying "Hell, I dont understand why ..."
12) A childish dissociation with responsibility "Dont blame me for my reactions ..." - how is that different to an anti-semite saying "don't blame me for my reactions, they had dradles and killed christ!".

The fact that you can finish your post with that last paragraph about how you dont want to be labelled blah blah blah is the height of hypocricy.

Again ... the definition of atheism is

From the dictionary

A-the-ism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Hivemind187

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

basically because it's a religion, if you want a religion we have thousands already on the books there is no need to go around starting new ones. Especially not new ones named after the grand lord of evil in christianity, the great western religion. It's ****ing retarded. Why name it after satan if you're not going for some kind of emo reaction from christians. Satan is their guy, they own him and trying to appropriate him just smacks of trying to be leet, or whatever the emo version of leet is.

/wrists

Again, you need NALA.

Satan is a derivation of Shaitan, Hebrew for "Accuser". If anything the Jews own him.

The Christian devil is a combination character of Beelzebub, Shaitan and later Lucifer and Pan.

Lucifer being the Greek muse of light and inspiration.
Pan being a pagan demi-god of fertility.
Shaitan being the Accuser
Beelzebub a Philistine insectoid god.

So take your pick, damn near everyone has a claim before the Christians.

Furthermore, just to take another dig at your prejudices, the icon of Satan is invoked precisely because of the context, but not to get a rise out of christians - its to get a rise out of the one invoking it. Emotional content.

Its is like a finger pointing away to the moon ... dont concentrate on the finger or you will miss all the heavenly glory ...*

*five uber-geek points for the first one to spot the movie reference.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

for the love of god just start another satanism form request on the forums board, then you can all go there and talk about how awesome you are.

Hivemind187

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

for the love of god just start another satanism form request on the forums board, then you can all go there and talk about how awesome you are.

Raus! Raus!! Mit Dem Sturmer gegen Juda Satan!!

Dades

Mord, you're not really helping this thread out the mire. In fact you have your boot on it's head.

Everybody relax, in fact.

Nodin

Hivemind187 wrote: »

.

Its is like a finger pointing away to the moon ... dont concentrate on the finger or you will miss all the heavenly glory ...*

*five uber-geek points for the first one to spot the movie reference.

Bruce Lee to young student in "Enter The Dragon", whilst coaching him on his kicks.

Hivemind187

Nodin wrote: »

Bruce Lee to young student in "Enter The Dragon", whilst coaching him on his kicks.

One packet of five uber-geek points to Nodin

liah

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Blah blah blah blah blah blah...

Again, I challenge you:

YOU are the worst of the problem because YOU validate such ignorance by demanding that others change their ways to make themselves more palettable to the ignorant.

It is no different than walking into Harlem and saying "You know, if you were whiter you wouldnt get half the flak you get now"

Or walking into a gay pride meeting and demanding "Look, stop having the man-sex, thats why people are shouting at you and beating you in the streets - Gawd, its like soooo obvious you know!".

All of your commentary would suggest that you can't actually back up your claim that you "understand stanism".

So far your failures have been

1) You display no willingness to accept that something you said may have upset someone yet you demand that no one treat you in a similar way.
2) You have formed reductionist opinions and expressed them while openly admiting that you have no more than a passing familiarity with the subject.
3) You have openly stated that you have not read the rest of the thread and apparently care not to.
4) You are having an argument with someone who went to bat on your behalf.
5) Continuing to expound your opinions as fact.
6) Use of "the argument from personal experience" as a jusitfier for those opinions being fact.
7) Continuing wilfull ignorance with the unbelievable claim that you infact know what you are talking about.
8) Hypocricy.
9) The validation of those you are criticising (religious loonies).
10) Outright refusing to aknowledge any information or to expand your knowledge "Explain it to me all you want ..."
11) Inconsistency "I undertand ..." later one saying "Hell, I dont understand why ..."
12) A childish dissociation with responsibility "Dont blame me for my reactions ..." - how is that different to an anti-semite saying "don't blame me for my reactions, they had dradles and killed christ!".

The fact that you can finish your post with that last paragraph about how you dont want to be labelled blah blah blah is the height of hypocricy.

Again ... the definition of atheism is

From the dictionary

A-the-ism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

You clearly didn't read a single word of what I wrote, because not a single item in your response indicates you did.

Re-read what I wrote and then respond (without taking things out of context ie. your "understand" and "explain it to me" statements) once you ACTUALLY get an understanding of what I'm saying. At the moment you're trying disturbingly hard to make yourself look big, but you're failing miserably because you're making it blatantly obvious you haven't comprehended what I've written.

I don't see how I can dumb it down any more.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Raus! Raus!! Mit Dem Sturmer gegen Juda Satan!!

did you really just compare yourself to the jews in nazi germany?

Hivemind187

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

did you really just compare yourself to the jews in nazi germany?

No, I Godwin'd you.

Goduznt Xzst

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

did you really just compare yourself to the jews in nazi germany?

It's a perfectly cromulent form of argument, otherwise known as Reductio ad Hitlerum

Zillah

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

for the love of god just start another satanism form request on the forums board, then you can all go there and talk about how awesome you are.

Frankly it's our fault for forcing you to repeatedly return to a thread you have no interest in reading.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to go to the golf forum and complain for two days that they should stop talking about a sport I have no interest in.

bigeasyeah

A naive set of rules.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you're such a nazi zillah.

robindch

Folks, fling open your doors and windows, let in the sunshine, kick back. And above all, relax.