After School Satan: Extracurricular Program for Schools

Bristolscale7

These people are doing god's good work

https://afterschoolsatan.com/educatin-with-satan/faq/

Absolam

I wonder if they've actually started any clubs.

Actually... I wonder just how much money they've raised for the clubs so far.

looksee

I don't see how it improves the 'should or should there not be belief systems in schools' thing by providing Satan-based rather than Jesus-based clubs. I would not want my kids being introduced to satanic beliefs as an alternative to christian beliefs. Of course the obvious solution is to not let them attend either. They are making a point, and it is a good one, but I cannot really get behind the idea of using kids to make that point.

They argue that they are not teaching Satanic beliefs, and they do manage to sound more humanist than anything, but suggesting that there is something wholesome about this nonsense is just misleading and is a case of 'catch them young'. I wonder where they got that idea from.

Qs

looksee wrote: »

I would not want my kids being introduced to satanic beliefs as an alternative to christian beliefs.

Having looked at the messages both are presenting to kids I'd be much happier with my kids going to the Satanic club.

meeeeh

I'd skip both tbh.

MrPudding

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

These people are doing god's good work

https://afterschoolsatan.com/educatin-with-satan/faq/

I was actually looking into getting up a UK and Ireland chapter of the Satanic Temple, but I just don't have the spare time that would be necessary.

MrP

looksee

MrPudding wrote: »

I was actually looking into getting up a UK and Ireland chapter of the Satanic Temple, but I just don't have the spare time that would be necessary.

MrP

That's interesting, what would be the attraction?

looksee

I probably didn't phrase that very well. I am trying to ask what is the object of Satanism, the attraction, the reasoning. What do people actually do at a meeting?

frag420

MrPudding wrote: »

I was actually looking into getting up a UK and Ireland chapter of the Satanic Temple, but I just don't have the spare time that would be necessary.

MrP

London branch was set up during the summer...

I recently posted the tenets of Satanism on social meida and asked people if they agreed or disagreed with them.

The vast majority agreed including a number of self proclaimed christians...until they found out it was the tenets of Satanism, then all of a sudden they disagreed!

I have to say I find them hard to disagree with.

donegal.

looksee wrote: »

That's interesting, what would be the attraction?

one club would have chords strummed badly on an acustic guitar . While the other would have guitarist with mad skills, lightning fast fingerpicking and crazy licks.

looksee

I have read the tenets of Satanism and agree that they are positive and worthy. However the definition of Satan in the Merriam Webster Dictionary is

Definition of Satan
1
: the angel who in Jewish belief is commanded by God to tempt humans to sin, to accuse the sinners, and to carry out God's punishment
2
: the rebellious angel who in Christian belief is the adversary of God and lord of evil

which does not sound very positive, so what is the connection between the tenets and this definition. I cannot find a definition of Satan on the Satanic Temple site, and most references elsewhere are to Satanism, rather than Satan.

Bristolscale7

I'd prefer the Flying Spaghetti Monster to Satan but in the context of ****ing with turbo-Christians in the u.s. the latter option is better.

Akrasia

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

I'd prefer the Flying Spaghetti Monster to Satan but in the context of ****ing with turbo-Christians in the u.s. the latter option is better.

Satanism makes sense as a protest against Christianity in the US where the constitution specifically forbids showing preferential treatment for one religion over any other in publicly funded spaces.
Satanism trolls Christians by demanding to be given space for monuments and Christmas displays.

In Ireland and the UK we need to promote secularism, because we're not constitutionally secular. What would be awesome would be a Camp Quest style science and skepticism summer camp

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

I probably didn't phrase that very well. I am trying to ask what is the object of Satanism, the attraction, the reasoning. What do people actually do at a meeting?

I don't think the Satanic Temple is actually a satanic religion in the terms most people would think of Satanists (or Satanism, as you say), it's more of a humanist type protest organisation (though I'm not certain it actually is an organisation), whose object is to needle Christians in the USA by virtue of the name, and to protest at the allowances made for religions in the USA.

frag420 wrote: »

London branch was set up during the summer...
I recently posted the tenets of Satanism on social meida and asked people if they agreed or disagreed with them. The vast majority agreed including a number of self proclaimed christians...until they found out it was the tenets of Satanism, then all of a sudden they disagreed! I have to say I find them hard to disagree with.

To be fair though, the tenets of the Satanic Temple organisation can't reasonably be held out as being the actual tenets of Satanism... they're not a million miles away from tenets many secular minded Christians would go along with; they certainly wouldn't be consistent with the kind of Satanism the Templars and Cathars were accused of practicing, or the kind of ritual sexual child abuse Satanists were regularly being accused of over the last few decades (and still occasionally are on Boards). Hardly surprising that self proclaimed Christians wouldn't want to be agreeing with tenets that are supposedly associated with that kind of behaviour.

Whilst the Baphomet statue et al are entertaining notions and it's good to critically examine how we as societies look at these issues, it seems to me I see a lot more requests for donations from the Satanic Temple of late than I see evidence of those donations being put to work in erecting statues or starting after school programs. I'm starting to wonder if this guy is just looking for people to fund his personal talking shop; there's lots of offers, invites, proposals and being available, but has he ever done anything?

Hotblack Desiato

looksee wrote: »

They are making a point, and it is a good one, but I cannot really get behind the idea of using kids to make that point.

The whole point is that kids should not be subjected to religious indoctrination in schools, and if freaking out the normals of average or sub-average intellect by using the word 'satan' helps achieve that goal then it's all well and good.

Peregrinus

Akrasia wrote: »

. . . . In Ireland and the UK we need to promote secularism, because we're not constitutionally secular. What would be awesome would be a Camp Quest style science and skepticism summer camp

"Now here's a game, children, which will teach you all about the 'survival of the fittest'."

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The whole point is that kids should not be subjected to religious indoctrination in schools, and if freaking out the normals of average or sub-average intellect by using the word 'satan' helps achieve that goal then it's all well and good.

The end justifies the means kind of thing? It's a familiar refrain right enough.... though it doesn't seem that the Satanic Temple are objecting to kids being subjected to religious indoctrination in schools. Judging by their proposition, they are offering alternative religious indoctrination (if that's what it is) to what is being offered (if it is religious indoctrination) by other religious groups (particularly the Child Evangelism Fellowship) in providing after school clubs. Which seems an eminently more equitable proposition...

looksee

though it doesn't seem that the Satanic Temple are objecting to kids being subjected to religious indoctrination in schools. Judging by their proposition, they are offering alternative religious indoctrination (if that's what it is) to what is being offered (if it is religious indoctrination) by other religious groups (particularly the Child Evangelism Fellowship) in providing after school clubs.

I can't quite make my mind up on this one. Obviously the Satanic Temple is offering 'alternative religious indoctrination' - aka after school clubs run by a religious group - because it is a more effective way of pointing out the need to remove religion from schools without actually standing outside the schools with protest signs. People are so used to protests that they are rarely effective and the protesters are often seen as eccentrics. If parents need somewhere to leave their children until they (the parents) finish work, they are likely to see a group operating from the school, and with the wholesome ethos of a Christian group as something to be grateful for.

For the Satanic Temple to offer childcare facilities should be enough to bring all the conspiracy theorists screaming in from all sides. Except that it is too simple to be a conspiracy, they are being completely open about it, that's no fun. What they are doing however is introducing children to the idea that Satan is an ok concept, and could make them very vulnerable to more traditional concepts of Satanism.

looksee

I don't think the Satanic Temple is actually a satanic religion in the terms most people would think of Satanists (or Satanism, as you say)

My use of the term Satanism was entirely accurate, I do not see the need for the implied correction. And in an echo of your own arguments, no one is claiming that the Satanic Temple is a religion, in the same way that a church is not a religion.

I do however take your (rather garbled) point.

meeeeh

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The whole point is that kids should not be subjected to religious indoctrination in schools, and if freaking out the normals of average or sub-average intellect by using the word 'satan' helps achieve that goal then it's all well and good.

What about the normals of above average intellect? Does this not work on them or do you think there are no normals with above average intellect among people sending kids to religious after school programme?

MrPudding

looksee wrote: »

I have read the tenets of Satanism and agree that they are positive and worthy. However the definition of Satan in the Merriam Webster Dictionary is

Definition of Satan
1
: the angel who in Jewish belief is commanded by God to tempt humans to sin, to accuse the sinners, and to carry out God's punishment
2
: the rebellious angel who in Christian belief is the adversary of God and lord of evil

which does not sound very positive, so what is the connection between the tenets and this definition. I cannot find a definition of Satan on the Satanic Temple site, and most references elsewhere are to Satanism, rather than Satan.

But they don't actually believe in a "Personal Satan".

Nick Park

If it's an After-School club then I have no problem with it. Using public school buildings for clubs outside of school hours hardly constitutes a violation of Church & State separation. So let the little devil worshippers have their club if they want one.

If it were being held during school hours then I would be vehemently opposed.

looksee

MrPudding wrote: »

But they don't actually believe in a "Personal Satan".

So what do they believe/ practise? What would your objective be if you started a branch here?

Hotblack Desiato

Absolam wrote: »

The end justifies the means kind of thing? It's a familiar refrain right enough.... though it doesn't seem that the Satanic Temple are objecting to kids being subjected to religious indoctrination in schools. Judging by their proposition, they are offering alternative religious indoctrination (if that's what it is) to what is being offered (if it is religious indoctrination) by other religious groups (particularly the Child Evangelism Fellowship) in providing after school clubs. Which seems an eminently more equitable proposition...

WHOOOOOOOSHHHH *CRACK* *CRACK*


That's the sound of the point going right over your head at > Mach1

Hotblack Desiato

meeeeh wrote: »

What about the normals of above average intellect? Does this not work on them or do you think there are no normals with above average intellect among people sending kids to religious after school programme?

Persons of average or above intellect don't need it explained to them, it's quite obvious to them what this church is at, same as all the others.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

I can't quite make my mind up on this one. Obviously the Satanic Temple is offering 'alternative religious indoctrination' - aka after school clubs run by a religious group - because it is a more effective way of pointing out the need to remove religion from schools without actually standing outside the schools with protest signs.

I don't think that really is obvious to be honest. I doubt they'd accept that what they're proposing to provide schools is actually indoctrination, for starters, nor are they saying that they think what they want to do is an effective way of pointing out the need to remove religion from schools; they certainly don't indicate it in their literature anyway. As far as I can tell they're pointing out that certain religions don't have a monopoly on providing after school clubs for children, and it's up to others to choose to take up that equality of opportunity if they want to see other values being presented to children. They haven' said the the Child Evangelism Fellowship after school clubs should be removed, have they?

looksee wrote: »

People are so used to protests that they are rarely effective and the protesters are often seen as eccentrics. If parents need somewhere to leave their children until they (the parents) finish work, they are likely to see a group operating from the school, and with the wholesome ethos of a Christian group as something to be grateful for.

I imagine it probably would be something to be grateful for, just as some humanists would see a similar offering aligned with their own views as something to be grateful for.

looksee wrote: »

For the Satanic Temple to offer childcare facilities should be enough to bring all the conspiracy theorists screaming in from all sides. Except that it is too simple to be a conspiracy, they are being completely open about it, that's no fun. What they are doing however is introducing children to the idea that Satan is an ok concept, and could make them very vulnerable to more traditional concepts of Satanism.

That sounds a shade like the opinion of a conspiracy theorist ( a slippery slope to Satanism?). But if as you say people are so used to protests that they are rarely effective and the protesters are often seen as eccentrics, then the conspiracy theorists will probably be as effective as the other eccentric protestors?

looksee wrote: »

My use of the term Satanism was entirely accurate, I do not see the need for the implied correction.

I'm sure you think so, but I wasn't correcting your usage, I was pointing that in the terms most people would think of Satanists or Satanism, the Satanic Temple doesn't really fit the bill.

looksee wrote: »

And in an echo of your own arguments, no one is claiming that the Satanic Temple is a religion, in the same way that a church is not a religion. I do however take your (rather garbled) point.

Well, sure, in that way it wouldn't be, obviously. Though they themselves say "As an organized religion, we feel it is our function to actively provide outreach, to lead by example, and to participate in public affairs wheresoever the issues might benefit from rational, Satanic insights", so they're certainly claiming they're a religion... even if it's not, as I said, in the terms most people would think of Satanists (or Satanism, as you say).

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

WHOOOOOOOSHHHH *CRACK* *CRACK*
That's the sound of the point going right over your head at > Mach1

Maybe. Or maybe the normals of average or above intellect realise that the mission and tenets of the Satanic Temple don't align entirely with your own notions of suppressing religion. Though of course, we wouldn't stoop so low as to call people with opinions we disagree with dumb.

meeeeh

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Persons of average or above intellect don't need it explained to them, it's quite obvious to them what this church is at, same as all the others.

Congrats you passed the smugness test. I always find amusing the ways people tell themselves how smart they are. Those who really are usually don't have to.

MrPudding

looksee wrote: »

So what do they believe/ practise? What would your objective be if you started a branch here?

Did you read much of their website? It really is all there, and I can't really explain it any better than they do.

I do think their purpose does seem to be going over certain people's heads, which I do wonder about. it seem failry simple to me, and I think it is well explained on their website. If anyone is interested enough they can find out exactly what they are about.

I don't beleive in gods, not so I beleive in satan or demons (though I have a strong belief in daemons), but the Satanic Temple's tenents really appeal to me.

MrP

MrPudding

meeeeh wrote: »

Congrats you passed the smugness test. I always find amusing the ways people tell themselves how smart they are. Those who really are usually don't have to.

It isn't really about being smart or smug. If a person actually made the effort to read the site, instead of jumping to conclusions, then they would understand, because it isn't hard to understand.

If one does not understand it then there are really only three reasons why that might be: 1) they actually have learning difficulties. This seem unlikely as they are responding to posts on a website, but if that is genuine I would be more than happy to try to explain and such a person would be welcome to PM me and I would do my best to assist. 2) they haven't bothered to read the site and are simply assuming what it is about or 3) they have read the website and are willfully misrepresenting it.

MrP

meeeeh

MrPudding wrote: »

It isn't really about being smart or smug. If a person actually made the effort to read the site, instead of jumping to conclusions, then they would understand, because it isn't hard to understand.

If one does not understand it then there are really only three reasons why that might be: 1) they actually have learning difficulties. This seem unlikely as they are responding to posts on a website, but if that is genuine I would be more than happy to try to explain and such a person would be welcome to PM me and I would do my best to assist. 2) they haven't bothered to read the site and are simply assuming what it is about or 3) they have read the website and are willfully misrepresenting it.

MrP

Are you saying that people of average or below average intellect who read q&a have either learning difficulties or are wilfully misrepresenting website? Because they are people that need to be enlightened?

You forgot fourth option anyway. It's dismiss it as empty waffle throwing scientific rationalism around every so often without actually offering anything concrete about the programme. It comes accross about as credible than the programme they are supposed to be alternative to.

looksee

It is the position of The Satanic Temple that religion can, and should, be divorced from superstition. As such, we do not promote a belief in a personal Satan. To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions.

Mr Pudding, this is all I can find on TST's information that attempts to explain the relationship between their beliefs and Satan. It really does not make any sense to me. Not all superstitions are religious, but all religion is superstition

Superstition: excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.

'We do not promote a belief in a personal Satan' so what kind of belief in Satan are you promoting?

The last sentence defeats me, Satan is a religiously inspired figure. Without God there is no Satan, so how can they be separated? And the essential definition of Satan includes

Satan is a figure appearing in the texts of the Abrahamic religions who brings evil and temptation, and is known as the deceiver who leads humanity astray.

Are you/ TST using the name Satan to mean something completely different to the accepted definition? And if so, why?

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

I do think their purpose does seem to be going over certain people's heads, which I do wonder about. it seem failry simple to me, and I think it is well explained on their website. If anyone is interested enough they can find out exactly what they are about.

Perhaps the error is in your own understanding of what people think, rather than their ability to understand the website? Which is, as you say, fairly simple. The Satanic Temple's purpose may be a tad on the nonsensical side here and there, but they are a religion so at least a soupcon of nonsense as at least par for the course I'd say...

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't beleive in gods, not so I beleive in satan or demons (though I have a strong belief in daemons), but the Satanic Temple's tenents really appeal to me.

More as a matter of interest than anything, are you offering a distinction between demon and daemon other than one being an archaic spelling of the other?

looksee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(classical_mythology)

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The whole point is that kids should not be subjected to religious indoctrination in schools, and if freaking out the normals of average or sub-average intellect by using the word 'satan' helps achieve that goal then it's all well and good.

The word indoctrination can be used in an emotive sense (e.g. you believe it to be the case). Or it can be used in somewhat more objective sense.

All kids are 'ndoctrinated' in school - that is, they are taught what it is felt best to teach them, without them having the critical ability to decide whether what they are being taught is accurate or true.

If you decide that religious education is indoctrination, then you must also decide the alternatives indoctrination. You cannot special plead your own preferences as not-indoctrination (in comparison to the rest), simply because they are your own preferences.

looksee

Doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.

Maths is not doctrine, geography is not doctrine, languages are not doctrine, history might be, depending on the education system. I agree that Satanism is as much doctrine as any other religion, or it appears to be. It has not yet been established what connection TST has with Satan.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(classical_mythology)

Is that a suggestion that Hotblack believes in classical Greek daemons?

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.

Maths is not doctrine, geography is not doctrine, languages are not doctrine, history might be, depending on the education system. I agree that Satanism is as much doctrine as any other religion, or it appears to be. It has not yet been established what connection TST has with Satan.

indoctrinate
teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

One might be indoctrinated with wave theory, or evolution, or political maps, or grammar.....

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

indoctrinate
teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

One might be indoctrinated with wave theory, or evolution, or political maps, or grammar.....

The thing is, you can be as critical as you like about wave theory or evolution.

Church teaching, not so much.

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

The thing is, you can be as critical as you like about wave theory or evolution. Church teaching, not so much.

That seems rather at odds with the observable facts; look at the level of criticism of Church teaching on A&A alone.

Nevertheless, how critical one might be of anything doesn't seem very relatable to whether someone can be indoctrinated in it? People are demonstrably critical of things people are indoctrinated with, and the fact that they are indoctrinated with them.

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

That seems rather at odds with the observable facts; look at the level of criticism of Church teaching on A&A alone.

I was, of course, referring to indoctrination of primary school age children and the like. We are teaching them verifiable facts about the world, or grammar rules or whatever. These facts can be investigated and proven if need be. Religion just indoctrinates. Everything is to be taken on faith. Nothing is to be questioned.

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

I was, of course, referring to indoctrination of primary school age children and the like. We are teaching them verifiable facts about the world, or grammar rules or whatever.

And that can be indoctrination, can't it? And one can be just as critical as they like of it as one can be of Church teaching, all the same.

Pherekydes wrote: »

These facts can be investigated and proven if need be. Religion just indoctrinates. Everything is to be taken on faith. Nothing is to be questioned.

I don't think that even approaches being true. The Catholic Church has a fairly substantial body of works which consist of theological debates and philosophical speculation; quite a lot is questioned. Augustine advocated the use of logic, history, and the natural sciences in considering Scripture, Thomas Aquinas claimed that the act of faith consists essentially in knowledge, and Dominican philosophers affirmed the possibility of rational demonstrability of certain preambles of faith, whilst Franciscan philosophers based their theological science on empirical and logical analysis of beliefs. The Reformation was a result of Christians questioning rather than relying on faith. The Satanic Temple we're discussing is a religion that specifically states as one of it's tenets "Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.", which directly refutes your assertion than everything is to be taken on faith. Both historically and contemporaneously, it seems pretty apparent that religion tends to do quite a bit more than just indoctrinate.

MrPudding

looksee wrote: »

Mr Pudding, this is all I can find on TST's information that attempts to explain the relationship between their beliefs and Satan. It really does not make any sense to me. Not all superstitions are religious, but all religion is superstition

'We do not promote a belief in a personal Satan' so what kind of belief in Satan are you promoting?

The last sentence defeats me, Satan is a religiously inspired figure. Without God there is no Satan, so how can they be separated? And the essential definition of Satan includes Are you/ TST using the name Satan to mean something completely different to the accepted definition? And if so, why?

You are quoting form the FAQ, but it is almost as if you haven't read the FAQ in its entirity. I am not really trying to avoid your question, but I genuinely beleive they explain it pretty well, and I am not sure what benefit me rewording or paraphrasing what they say would be of any value, especially as you seem to have gone to the FAQ, but not actually read it.

I will quote the following:

TST FAQ wrote:

Satan is symbolic of the Eternal Rebel in opposition to arbitrary authority, forever defending personal sovereignty even in the face of insurmountable odds. Satan is an icon for the unbowed will of the unsilenced inquirer… the heretic who questions sacred laws and rejects all tyrannical impositions. Ours is the literary Satan best exemplified by Milton and the Romantic Satanists, from Blake to Shelley, to Anatole France.

How does that not answer your question?

looksee wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(classical_mythology)

I meant this kind.

MrP

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

I meant this kind. MrP

Hardly something one could have a strong belief in then, eh? Unless, of course, you accept their existence on faith. Either way, it seems a tad disingenuous to put them in the same context as supernatural entities, almost as if you were deliberately attempting to mislead. I wonder if it was an attempt to draw attention away from your other statements, or just another one of those throw it out there 'post truth' nonsenses...

looksee

MrPudding wrote: »

You are quoting form the FAQ, but it is almost as if you haven't read the FAQ in its entirity. I am not really trying to avoid your question, but I genuinely beleive they explain it pretty well, and I am not sure what benefit me rewording or paraphrasing what they say would be of any value, especially as you seem to have gone to the FAQ, but not actually read it.

I will quote the following:

How does that not answer your question?

MrP

It is still not making any sense. As I suggested, you are using the word Satan to mean what you want it to mean, rather than the normal interpretation. So how can you expect anyone else to understand what you are talking about?

I suspect you do not want to explain the FAQs because you do not entirely understand them, which is really not surprising as they do not make any sense.

MrPudding

looksee wrote: »

It is still not making any sense. As I suggested, you are using the word Satan to mean what you want it to mean, rather than the normal interpretation. So how can you expect anyone else to understand what you are talking about?

I suspect you do not want to explain the FAQs because you do not entirely understand them, which is really not surprising as they do not make any sense.

They see satan as a symbol, a literary charactor, as opposed to a supernatural being, possesing certain attributes that they admire. Which is what they say in the FAQ.

I am pretty sure I understand what they are saying, and I am not avoiding explaining because I don't understand. I am avoiding explaining because the entire thing seems pretty well explained by them. Given that it I beleive they have already explained thing pretty well, I am not sure what I can add. Additionally, I have no interest in getting into a stupid debate with someone willfully minsunderstanding simple written word.

MrP

looksee

MrPudding wrote: »

They see satan as a symbol, a literary charactor, as opposed to a supernatural being, possesing certain attributes that they admire. Which is what they say in the FAQ.

I am pretty sure I understand what they are saying, and I am not avoiding explaining because I don't understand. I am avoiding explaining because the entire thing seems pretty well explained by them. Given that it I beleive they have already explained thing pretty well, I am not sure what I can add. Additionally, I have no interest in getting into a stupid debate with someone willfully minsunderstanding simple written word.

MrP

I am sorry you see the debate as stupid, it is not intended to be. Nor am I willfully misunderstanding anything. It appears that TST is doing the willful misunderstanding in using the name and symbol.

The inverted pentagram and the goats head are absolutely linked to Satanism. Satan is a Christian concept. I genuinely cannot see the relevance of using symbols of what most people would interpret as 'evil' (whatever that is) to represent non-superstitious, rational, benevolent ideas.

Again, TST says that religion does not have to have a supernatural aspect, but then they use a supernatural icon derived from a religion that does have a supernatural being.

You have said you would like to organise a branch of TST, but you are not prepared to engage with questions about the purpose and objectives of the group. It is not sufficient to say the FAQs explain it all, I have read them and they do not explain it to me, and quite a lot of it is actually contradictory. If this makes my attempt to discuss it a 'stupid argument' then I have to conclude that there is not a great deal of substance in the organisation.

robindch

looksee wrote: »

Satan is a Christian concept.

The idea of Satan, and similar characters in non-Abrahamic religions, predate christianity by centuries and probably by millennia.

looksee

robindch wrote: »

The idea of Satan, and similar characters in non-Abrahamic religions, predate christianity by centuries and probably by millennia.

Yes, I had already said that earlier, I mis-spoke in the second reference.

MrPudding

looksee wrote: »

I am sorry you see the debate as stupid, it is not intended to be. Nor am I willfully misunderstanding anything. It appears that TST is doing the willful misunderstanding in using the name and symbol.

The inverted pentagram and the goats head are absolutely linked to Satanism. Satan is a Christian concept. I genuinely cannot see the relevance of using symbols of what most people would interpret as 'evil' (whatever that is) to represent non-superstitious, rational, benevolent ideas.

Again, TST says that religion does not have to have a supernatural aspect, but then they use a supernatural icon derived from a religion that does have a supernatural being.

You have said you would like to organise a branch of TST, but you are not prepared to engage with questions about the purpose and objectives of the group. It is not sufficient to say the FAQs explain it all, I have read them and they do not explain it to me, and quite a lot of it is actually contradictory. If this makes my attempt to discuss it a 'stupid argument' then I have to conclude that there is not a great deal of substance in the organisation.

OK, first, I said I was interested in starting one up, but I didn't have time. Luckily someone else did, so I don't need to. I think there is a pretty good chance when I finish my studies, and I have a little more spare time, I might get more involved.

I don't really see the problem with TST using the iconography normally associated with the supernatural. As a organisation they have developed their tenents, and they have set out their beliefs, which I am sure you would agree, they are fully entitled to do. I can see why they have chosen satan, it is a symbol or a metaphor, nothing more, and they explain what satan, (the literary character, not the imaginary supernatural being) represents to them. And again, I don’t really see the issue here.

Are you also giving the Freemasons grief about their symbols? Freemasonry does have an engineering aspect to it, one does not need to be a stone mason or an engineer to join, yet they use icons of those trades. TST use satan as a symbol for what they stand for, and quite naturally, they use the symbolism and iconography associated with satan.

Why can they not use satan and satanic iconography as they chose? Who is anyone to say what they can and cannot believe, or what they can and cannot use to represent their views or their organisation. If a person that doesn’t go to mass, has sex before marriage, uses contraception, thinks abortion is ok in some circumstances, has no issue with gay people, may not even believe in gods and thinks the pope is a bit of a douche is allowed to call themselves a catholic then why can’t a person that does not believe in a supernatural being called satan call themselves a satanist. That stinks of religious discrimination to me.

MrP

looksee

Ok, I accept your argument, though all it proves is that TST is as irrational and illogical as any other religion.