What's The Deal With Satanism?

[chefranden]

1. would you people get over this idea

its designed to be the opposite of demiurge religions

 

2.and for the people telling me to prove dark gods exist...this is easy...why dont you prove they dont exist?

thats why im just talking about the philosophy

 

1. NO

 

2. The problem with being the advocate of a position especially an extraordinary position is that you have the burden of proof. If I told you that invisible green men crawled up your ass every night it would be up to me to prove it. When you tell me dark gods exist it is up to you to prove it. I'm sorry but this is just how logical argument works.

 

Edit

 

1. NO: I suppose I should explain why in an attempt to add to your education. You could certainly argue on the basis of age that the "dark gods" were not invented as the opposite of Christianity. However, The Brands of Christianity that are still extant descend from a religion invented in part to counter or oppose these "dark gods". In order to make these "dark gods" subject to the power of the new religion a legend was passed around that these "dark gods" were fallen angels created by ChristianGod. As it is written "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

 

Whether you like it or not Christianity is the opposite of the "dark gods".

[Kuroikaze]

double post

[Kuroikaze]

would you people get over this idea

its designed to be the opposite of demiurge religions

 

and for the people telling me to prove dark gods exist...this is easy...why dont you prove they dont exist?

thats why im just talking about the philosophy

 

Yes, and we have told you why we think the philosophy is nothing but crap and more crap.

 

If I recall this was when you started calling us names.

[ShackledNoMore]

and for the people telling me to prove dark gods exist...this is easy...why dont you prove they dont exist?

thats why im just talking about the philosophy

Oh, I see. I thought that like me, you were not a believer in xianity. But now I see, by your logic, that since we can't disprove the existence or sovereignty of the xian god, he must be the supreme god. And since we can't prove that jesus wasn't the christ or that mohammad wasn't this god's profit, or that an angel didn't visit Joseph Smith and give him two stones which he translated into the good news for the new world, those all must be simultaneously true. And since we can't disprove the religious claims of these sects claiming that their competing sects are heresies, they are all at the same time the Truth and heresies. While we're at it, we can't disprove the claims about the divinity of vishnu, zeus, odin, atum, the jade emperor, or ometecuhtli and any of their respective pantheons, all making different claims. There may be plenty of mutually exclusive claims between all this, but it all must be true because we can't disprove any of it.

 

Now maybe you're a sort of dark universalist, but you've still racked up quite a problem for yourself if you are to entertain any claim that you can't disprove, no matter how far fetched.

 

On the other hand, if you freely and emphatically disavow any literal belief in your gods, even of a sort of universal-ish nature and concede that you consider them merely symbolic constructs left over from an old mythology that merely aid you in framing your philosophy, then I will at least grant that your belief system could be construed as consistent and rational. I would still take issue with your philosophy itself and find the vigilante quality of your philosophy to be deeply disturbing, but that would be another discussion.

[Guest Zenobia]

so please use something other than my age to say why you think im dumb

 

Um...OK. Your arguments? Those are dumb.

 

I don't need to tell you WHY they are dumb - everyone else who has posted has done an excellent job of that! I'm just waiting to see if you can postulate any articulate, insightful responses.

 

Or if you'll just go back to calling everyone names again.

 

My money is on the latter, but it would be great if you were capable of the former.

[SitraAhraLifotachKliffot]

1. would you people get over this idea

its designed to be the opposite of demiurge religions

 

2.and for the people telling me to prove dark gods exist...this is easy...why dont you prove they dont exist?

thats why im just talking about the philosophy

 

1. NO

 

2. The problem with being the advocate of a position especially an extraordinary position is that you have the burden of proof. If I told you that invisible green men crawled up your ass every night it would be up to me to prove it. When you tell me dark gods exist it is up to you to prove it. I'm sorry but this is just how logical argument works.

 

Edit

 

1. NO: I suppose I should explain why in an attempt to add to your education. You could certainly argue on the basis of age that the "dark gods" were not invented as the opposite of Christianity. However, The Brands of Christianity that are still extant descend from a religion invented in part to counter or oppose these "dark gods". In order to make these "dark gods" subject to the power of the new religion a legend was passed around that these "dark gods" were fallen angels created by ChristianGod. As it is written "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

 

Whether you like it or not Christianity is the opposite of the "dark gods".

 

yea...DUH! its designed to be the opposite of purticularly judiasm/christianity

just pointing out that we dont see satan as a fallen angel

[SitraAhraLifotachKliffot]

and for the people telling me to prove dark gods exist...this is easy...why dont you prove they dont exist?

thats why im just talking about the philosophy

Oh, I see. I thought that like me, you were not a believer in xianity. But now I see, by your logic, that since we can't disprove the existence or sovereignty of the xian god, he must be the supreme god. And since we can't prove that jesus wasn't the christ or that mohammad wasn't this god's profit, or that an angel didn't visit Joseph Smith and give him two stones which he translated into the good news for the new world, those all must be simultaneously true. And since we can't disprove the religious claims of these sects claiming that their competing sects are heresies, they are all at the same time the Truth and heresies. While we're at it, we can't disprove the claims about the divinity of vishnu, zeus, odin, atum, the jade emperor, or ometecuhtli and any of their respective pantheons, all making different claims. There may be plenty of mutually exclusive claims between all this, but it all must be true because we can't disprove any of it.

 

Now maybe you're a sort of dark universalist, but you've still racked up quite a problem for yourself if you are to entertain any claim that you can't disprove, no matter how far fetched.

 

On the other hand, if you freely and emphatically disavow any literal belief in your gods, even of a sort of universal-ish nature and concede that you consider them merely symbolic constructs left over from an old mythology that merely aid you in framing your philosophy, then I will at least grant that your belief system could be construed as consistent and rational. I would still take issue with your philosophy itself and find the vigilante quality of your philosophy to be deeply disturbing, but that would be another discussion.

 

im not an xian...we believe theres a god..but we dont like him...we worship his enemies...dark gods

get that through your head...quit trying to say satanists are "christians"...just because you believe in gods doesnt mean you worship him

[SitraAhraLifotachKliffot]

would you people get over this idea

its designed to be the opposite of demiurge religions

 

and for the people telling me to prove dark gods exist...this is easy...why dont you prove they dont exist?

thats why im just talking about the philosophy

 

Yes, and we have told you why we think the philosophy is nothing but crap and more crap.

 

If I recall this was when you started calling us names.

 

what did you expect me to do...just agree w/you

lol at you

i came on this forum expecting smart people

[Guest Zenobia]

so please use something other than my age to say why you think im dumb

 

Um...OK. Your arguments? Those are dumb.

 

I don't need to tell you WHY they are dumb - everyone else who has posted has done an excellent job of that! I'm just waiting to see if you can postulate any articulate, insightful responses.

 

Or if you'll just go back to calling everyone names again.

 

My money is on the latter, but it would be great if you were capable of the former.

 

Looks like I won my bet

[Neon Genesis]

I suspect his religion doesn't see it that way. More like, Satanism have had many different names, they prayed to Dagon, or Belsebub etc, same god under different names, and Christianity (and Judaism) took that god and discredited it and gave it evil characteristics, when it really wasn't at first. It maybe was more like Shiva in Hinduism, or maybe Zurvan or Ahriman in Zoroastrianism, I'm not sure which one...

That's the impression that I get from reading the Wikipedia article about the Satanic bible which semi-makes sense to me though it doesn't make it true. I just can sort of understand their perspective looking at is being like a dark gods version of Hindu avatars. So, in other words, Satanism is more like paganism that incorporates Christian motifs in it? But then why call it Satanism? That makes the religion sound misleading to me, personally.

[chefranden]

1. would you people get over this idea

its designed to be the opposite of demiurge religions

 

yea...DUH! its designed to be the opposite of purticularly judiasm/christianity

just pointing out that we dont see satan as a fallen angel

 

Sorry, I misread your crappy sentence structure. I shall spend more time attempting to puzzle out your meaning. That will be quicker than waiting for you to learn how to write.

 

Now address the extraordinary claims bit of my post, if you can.

[Kuroikaze]

what did you expect me to do...just agree w/you

lol at you

i came on this forum expecting smart people

 

I didn't expect you to agree with me.

I expected you to act like an intelligent human being.

 

If you think you're beliefs are correct then defend them. Getting pissy and calling people names isn't a defense.

 

You found smart people, quite few of them. From what I've seen so far, you are the one severely lacking in the intelligence department. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I can only go by the content of your posts.

[chefranden]

what did you expect me to do...just agree w/you

lol at you

i came on this forum expecting smart people

 

What is your definition of smart? Do you mean "smart" as in "smart ass"? This would seem to be the case, if you consider your self smart. You certainly have demonstrated a considerable ability in "smart assiness". In this smart category I concede that you are "smarter" than I.

 

Aside from that though, I'm not sure that you know what a smart person would look like. Perhaps smart people are the ones that don't challenge your silly assumptions. Perhaps smart people are those who will respect your philosophy in spite of the fact you can neither express it or defend it in an articulate fashion.

 

Perhaps you expected that you would just be accepted as the enemy of my enemy? As long as you are anti-christian any wacky hypothesis should do, right?

 

If you bother to read through the Lions den a little before you jumped in, you would have found that we don't even cut each other any slack in here. This is the place to find the flaws in your thinking. To that end either start defending* yourself, or go to the mall and giggle at girls, or what ever it is older children amuse themselves with these days.

 

*Whining about fairness and respect is not a defense.

[Ouroboros]

Aside from that though, I'm not sure that you know what a smart person would look like.

They have cone-shaped heads. Easy to spot, considering the hats look funny. So far I haven't seen one, so I've concluded, there are no smart people in the world... *sigh*

[SitraAhraLifotachKliffot]

what did you expect me to do...just agree w/you

lol at you

i came on this forum expecting smart people

 

What is your definition of smart? Do you mean "smart" as in "smart ass"? This would seem to be the case, if you consider your self smart. You certainly have demonstrated a considerable ability in "smart assiness". In this smart category I concede that you are "smarter" than I.

 

Aside from that though, I'm not sure that you know what a smart person would look like. Perhaps smart people are the ones that don't challenge your silly assumptions. Perhaps smart people are those who will respect your philosophy in spite of the fact you can neither express it or defend it in an articulate fashion.

 

Perhaps you expected that you would just be accepted as the enemy of my enemy? As long as you are anti-christian any wacky hypothesis should do, right?

 

If you bother to read through the Lions den a little before you jumped in, you would have found that we don't even cut each other any slack in here. This is the place to find the flaws in your thinking. To that end either start defending* yourself, or go to the mall and giggle at girls, or what ever it is older children amuse themselves with these days.

 

*Whining about fairness and respect is not a defense.

 

why dont you give that speech to people who are whining about me "calling them names"

rofl

[Kuroikaze]

why dont you give that speech to people who are whining about me "calling them names"

rofl

 

The only person whining here is you, it hardly hurts our feelings when you call us names.

 

It is just that calling people names is not a defense for your beliefs. It is a logical fallacy known as "ad hominem."

 

By the way, whining about this isn't much of an argument either.

 

My hypothesis is that you are an idiot. So far you aren't doing much to prove me wrong.

[ShackledNoMore]

Aside from that though, I'm not sure that you know what a smart person would look like.

They have cone-shaped heads. Easy to spot, considering the hats look funny. So far I haven't seen one, so I've concluded, there are no smart people in the world... *sigh*

Maybe you just haven't been to the right places: they are from France.

[Guest FaithofSolarDaevas]

I am lost! In all the back and forth. What were you all talking about again: Satanism, Neo-Satanism, Neo-Pagans (with a "darker" view), Magik, or "Heavy Metal's symbolism" ??? The rest of us are not able to follow what it is that your at.

 

 

PS - The candyman can :~

 

 

 

.

 

 

:

[Steven]

im not an xian...we believe theres a god..but we dont like him...we worship his enemies...dark gods

get that through your head...quit trying to say satanists are "christians"...just because you believe in gods doesnt mean you worship him

 

As I understand the Atheist perspective, all belief in Deity is delusion. If you BELIEVE in the Xtian God, you must believe that he is all powerful, yet you stand in opposition to him, that sound soubly delusional to me.

 

Since Satan is a diety of the Abrahamic relgions, that makes Satanism an Abrahamic religion, I won't say your an Xtian but your no better.

[florduh]

I forgot how entertaining this thread was. Thanks for reviving it!

[Steven]

I forgot how entertaining this thread was. Thanks for reviving it!

 

Sorry about that. I didn't notice the dates, I was distracted by all the froth and bubble. I just wanted to see him blather some more.

[Vomit Comet]

I've been a contributing member of the church of Satan for many years, and I think I know how you could have got the impression they were just "fucking around". They have a highly attenuated manner of public relations and tend to treat any unique social circle in a different way. When talking to the "metal" community, what you are going to see and hear is a lot of pentagrams, trinkets (to look awesome to your metallic friends when you wear them), and a lot of "hail Satan's" shouted in the air. That is in keeping with the entertainment / fashion atmosphere and level of interest. When dealing with the general public, a demeanor of a private-secular-humanist organization is used to guard against hysterical fears from other religious people, and so on as needed.

 

The reason so many different impressions are made is that long ago it was determined that no really fair and objective treatment of the C. of S. from the general public was possible. So, there is no real recruitment effort, and prospective members are kept in an outer circle unless invited to join.

 

In that most organizations of any kind make direct and straight-forward efforts to expand, it is easy to assume the C. of S. is also, and that you are getting the impression of who they really are when you see their public persona. So I can see how you thought they were "fucking around".

 

I got my information from someone who claimed to be marginally involved with them, particularly through Feral House publishing. He said they were basically just a bunch of "ye merry pranksters" who just wanted to treat every day like it was Halloween. Maybe he was passing on disinformation to throw me (and some others) off? Maybe he was full of shit?

 

Well, I'm curious as to what the CoS is all about. How much of it is "shits 'n giggles" and how much of it is serious life philosophy or religion/metaphysic of some sort?

 

Also, I get the impressionism that a lot of satanist philosophy is elitist... kind of the whole Nietzschean "ubermensch" going around with big hairy balls and being all strong and tough and bad-ass while disdaining the weak. Through the likes of Jim Goad/Answer Me! (now there's a piece of work if there ever was one) I've heard some of these guys spout some pretty crazy-sounding policy recommendations... like letting the poor starve and be miserable without any help, as punishment for being poor, stuff like that. It's like the worst of contemporary libertarianism mixed with 19th century Social Darwinism a la Herbert Spencer. What's going on here? Are guys like that representative?

[Munk]

Only on page 3 or 4 of this thing so far, but I feel compelled to comment.

 

To our defensive satanist, I'm not very far from 21, so at I'm about 3 or 4 years older than you so I don't feel I have a right to poke at you about age. However I don't think these people are mocking you simply because of your age. What bothers them is your vehemence. There is nothing wrong espousing a belief. I personally have a very odd belief set which happens to fall under the category of neo-paganism. However, I realize I have no physical proof and if someone is asking a question about my beliefs and it is not intended to attack, even if it seems hurtful, then I try my best to answer as nicely and concisely as I can.

 

I am glad you're not evangelizing. No one can force anyone to believe anything. I believe what I believe based solely on personal experiences and I honestly don't care if people agree with me or not since I don't have a "one true god" concept. To me, I'm deistic in the sense that whatever the gods are, they are simply there and we are ultimately in control of our own lives. My wonderful boyfriend of nearly 4 years is an athiest and because of the way my beliefs work, I believe his non-belief makes perfect sense because that's where his experiences have led him. But I digress.

 

IMHO, it isn't your age that bothers the people here, but the un-backed claims you put on the table as truths. Spirituality is a purely personal thing. I personally don't feel the poster was being disrespectful to illicit a fight. He may not have the correct view of these beliefs and I don't either. But it seems to me he was simply attempting to get some answers. He also said a few things that i personally feel he is mistaken on paganism but I'm not offended nor do I feel mentally superior to him or above him in any other way. Also, there are so many different "flavors" of paganism that I don't think I could tell what I know well enough to cover it all. We should teach eachother and help eachother learn instead of simply attacking someone based on a statement put forth that was not intended to arouse anger, but merely illicit some advice and/or discussion.

 

It doesn't matter that you're young per se, but that you appear to claim to know some set truth. No one likes a know-it-all. Also, the fact that you are 17 doesn't help your case. I look like a high schooler even though I'm a junior in college. And I am still very young. I know what it's like to face ageism. However, as a psychology major, teenagers tend to think they know everything. I know this doesn't apply to all teens and I'm fresh out of those years myself. The human brain doesn't finish fully developing until about the age of 25. So claiming to have this truth while coupled with your age and the usual brain chemistry and behavior associated with it tends to worsen your cause.

 

In his defense, I've seen plenty of fundie rants from people who could be my grandfather that look as if my almost 3 year old baby cousin could've written it. I do not agree with the tone. While I understand that those who dabble in occultish practices are treated like social lepers, the best way is to respond in a civil manner. There are times to draw the sword and times to use the pen, and this is not a "sword-time". The poster did not directly attack you or your beliefs, he simply stated what knowledge he'd been given on said subject. There are ways to say your piece without flying off the handle and hurling insults to people into the depths of cyberspace. If you hadn't been so belligerent from the start, most likely no one would've drug out the "age card". Respect is a privilege, not a right. You have to earn it.

 

You say one of your tenets is an "eye for an eye" mentality. As a earth-based pagan, we have what's called the three-fold law: whatever you do to others, be it good or bad, will come back to you three times. Basically, karma cubed.

 

These people don't agree with me, and I wouldn't want them to anyway. It'd be boring and as long as their lives are meaningful to them and they're happy that's just the way it should be. Before we evolved to what we are were all atheists.

 

You complain of others attacking you based on age, then turn around and try and use the alleged age of your beliefs as a form of authority. It's a double-standard: your age is not to be regarded, but it's okay to use it about your religion's veracity.

 

Harshness will get you nowhere if you don't try kindness first.