Atheists View On Satanism?

[lewisnotmiller]

Which makes absolutely zero sense. Why not at least subscribe to the theory of religion then?

Do I really have to explain the difference?
Okay, well, in the hope that you're being honest, and not merely argumentative...

1) My comment was in context to you stating that atheists should only believe in what they can eyeball or rub their hands over. That's a simplistic take on things. The Theory of Evolution is an example of something most atheists would 'believe' in, yet can't be eyeballed. You can substitute gravity if you prefer.

2) There is no 'theory of religion'. If you are talking about a particular religion, then fine. Which one is factual? What is there that allows it to meet the scientific definition of 'theory'? Why is one factual and the others not? If they are all factual, how do you deal with the cognitive dissonance generated by their varying views on things? If you're talking a general theory encompassing all religion, then your point makes little sense to me. Religions exist. It is the higher powers they generally profess to worship that atheists doubt/deny.

IN summary, and speaking for myself, evolution meets evidenciary requirements, and therefore I 'believe' in it, for whatever that's worth. It's our best guess, but there's enough evidence for it to be more than a guess. I doubt we're 100% right on it, but it's a better stab than anything else at this point in time. I wouldn't say the same about any particular religion. Explain to me how this makes zero sense?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Uh-uh. Not strong enough. It's the disbelief in the existence of a deity. As in, "I don't believe in God, because there is no God".

You're explaining atheism to atheists? Okay.
Well, in my case, I don't believe in God, because I have no reason to believe in God.

Wrong. It is specifically the disbelief in a deity. As in, "I don't believe in God, because there is no God". It explains, in part, why so many atheists are egotistical.

Yup. We're egotists. Because we think we occurred largely through accident, and that when we die we're worm-food. As opposed to a belief that we're the most advanced creation of a superior being, and were formed in his image. So, here's the thing. Atheists, much like theists, are a mixed group. You can stereo-type millions of people with no consistent dogma or theory on life if you like, but it says far more about you than about those people.

Wrong, again. It is specifically the disbelief in a deity. As in, "I don't believe in God, because there is no God". It explains, in part, why so many atheists are egotistical.

You should have quoted yourself there. Otherwise it's self-plagarism, or something, surely? :sarcastic

Now, tell me how you know that God does not exist, and why are you fighting the idea of a God in the first place? Do you not understand that the upside is infinitely better than anything you currently have any hope to live for?

I have no reason to believe in God. I make no claim beyond that. Your last sentence is ridiculous. My belief, or lack thereof, makes absolutely no difference to whether God exists or not. So there is no 'upside'. Pascals wager is a fallacy. An omnipotent God knows what's in my heart, and I'll take my chances with honesty over self-serving lip-service. And if there is no God, it doesn't matter. The things you seem to sure are the only things providing meaning to life are meaningless to me, and yet somehow I manage to live a happy, well-adjusted life.

 

[Athan]

It can be an active disbelief.
However, it is not believing in a deity, either actively {god does not exist} or inactively {merely lacking a belief in a deity}

Too agnostic. See, there are several levels to an atheist's/agnostic's ignorance: Agnostics merely acknowledge that they don't know whether God exists, or not. This is where your lack of belief argument is most closely suited.

The next level is good old fashioned atheism. This is where the stink of arrogance really begins. On this level, pseudo scientists step in and announce the non existence of God as if "they've really been there, ya know"?

The last level is anti-theism. On this level, senseless atheists not only parrot the above ignorance, but they like to put some STANK ON IT, too! For example: "You stunted simians will never get away from Christmas fantasy until you stop believing in Santa Claus". It's at this level that secularists seek to separate State from Church, and with a little luck, extinguish Church altogether.

Make sense so far?

You can whine about your favoured version of the definition all you want. It merely shows that not only are you ignorant of the definition of atheism, but that you are intentionally ignorant of the definition of atheism.

The sooner you stop trying to deceive me about what atheism is, the sooner we can cut through this nonsense and find out where you really stand.

Repeating the same ignorant statement does not help your credibility.

I wouldn't repeat myself if I felt you didn't need to keep hearing the message.

I am not the least bit interested in your strawman of ignorance. You have been informed of the truth of the matter.
Your wishing to remain intentionally ignorant reveals much more about you than it shows of anything else.

The sooner you stop trying to deceive me about what atheism is, the sooner we can cut through this nonsense and find out where you really stand.

Now that you have been informed, it is my opinion that every time you repeat the ignorant statement, you are flat out lying.

I wouldn't repeat myself if I felt you didn't need to keep hearing the message.

 

[McBell]

Too agnostic. See, there are several levels to an atheist's/agnostic's ignorance: Agnostics merely acknowledge that they don't know whether God exists, or not. This is where your lack of belief argument is most closely suited.

The next level is good old fashioned atheism. This is where the stink of arrogance really begins. On this level, pseudo scientists step in and announce the non existence of God as if "they've really been there, ya know"?

The last level is anti-theism. On this level, senseless atheists not only parrot the above ignorance, but they like to put some STANK ON IT, too! For example: "You stunted simians will never get away from Christmas fantasy until you stop believing in Santa Claus". It's at this level that secularists seek to separate State from Church, and with a little luck, extinguish Church altogether.

Make sense so far?

Yep.
You are still intent on spreading bold faced lies.

The sooner you stop trying to deceive me about what atheism is, the sooner we can cut through this nonsense and find out where you really stand.

I am not the least bit interested in your snake oil.
Especially since you have all but flat out stated you are not the least bit interested in truth or facts.

I wouldn't repeat myself if I felt you didn't need to keep hearing the message.

You can repeat the same lies over and over.
It only hurts your credibility.

The sooner you stop trying to deceive me about what atheism is, the sooner we can cut through this nonsense and find out where you really stand.

Since I have already informed you of the truth of the matter and you are still repeating the same misinformation, I can safely assume you are more interested in your lies than you are in anything else.
Perhaps you should go back to preaching to the choir.
They are much more likely to agree with your lies since you are merely telling them what they want to hear.

I wouldn't repeat myself if I felt you didn't need to keep hearing the message.

Yes, your repeating yourself is about your feelings, not truth or facts.
I understand that.

The problem though, is that I am not one to coddle your feelings.
Especially when your feelings are what you use to justify telling bold faced lies.

 

[YmirGF]

The problem though, is that I am not one to coddle your feelings.
Especially when your feelings are what you use to justify telling bold faced lies.

It might be helpful if he used a bigger type face and different colours. That always works. And more exclamation marks too!!!!

 

[JiSe]

Some working definitions I have used on the axis off Agnostic - Atheist - Anti-Theist:

Agnostic: Lack of knowledge about god/gods.
Can range from "I personally don't know if there are any gods" to
"Humans can't have knowledge about gods"

Atheist: Lack of belief in existence of god/gods.
Can range from "I don't believe in any gods" to "I find no evidence to support any theistic claims that are out there".

Anti-theism: Direct opposition to organized religion.
Can range from "I think most organized religions are harmful to society/people" to "I think any form of theism is harmful to society/people"

It's helpful to understand that there is also the Naturalist - Supernaturalist axis.
And that some atheist might be supernaturalists (although most seem to fall into naturalist category)

Naturalistic stance wherein all phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural are either false or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses.

Supernaturalistic stance usually claims something that either hasn't been presented with sufficient evidence, or is unfalsifiable. Most theist have claims regarding their deities that put them into this category.

 

[dgirl1986]

Satanism is an interesting topic. I have heard bits and pieces here and there, but I havent paid that much attention to it to be honest. I have never had problems relating to it so it doesnt bother me really.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Personally I find the term Satanism like Atheism to be one that has so many meanings that I find it difficult to know exactly what you are referring to. The term Satanism has been used to refer to a subset of the many divergent manifestations of christianity that involve either rejecting god or embracing the other, a term attached to certain types of theists, certain types of atheists and so forth.

Personally I view almost any theistic tradition in the same light - people, communities and institutions who adhere to certain customs as a result of claims about some (usually) supernatural aspect to reality for which there is insignificant support and/or contrary evidence as to it's existence let alone the structure or character of said aspect.

Within that perspective I believe most 'satanism' falls into the LHP and as such has a lesser emphasis on conformity and therefore is probably less inclined towards group think and resistance to change that could accommodate necessary revision (such as social norms) and as such might be less of an obstacle to societal change (less conservative for the sake of it) and even theistic change (less dogmatic for the sake of it). It is also by virtue of that very same characteristic, perhaps more difficult to use to instil certain precepts or foundational values in much the same way as atheism. That said I am perhaps slightly more willing to give credence to some of the stereotypes thereof - this includes that I do perceive there to be a possible correlation between negative behaviour and the LHP (edit: mainly I say this as a result of the fact that certain types of people may be more strongly drawn to the LHP than the RHP - not because the philosophies of LHP engenders such behaviour but that it may be seen as more natural or desirable by such people), but would suggest such a correlation likely very slight.

I view the LHP as significantly less detrimental to society in many respects than the RHP.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Too agnostic. See, there are several levels to an atheist's/agnostic's ignorance: Agnostics merely acknowledge that they don't know whether God exists, or not. This is where your lack of belief argument is most closely suited.

If it were, I'd self-describe as agnostic. You're confusing someone saying they don't know with someone saying they have no reason to believe.

The next level is good old fashioned atheism. This is where the stink of arrogance really begins. On this level, pseudo scientists step in and announce the non existence of God as if "they've really been there, ya know"?

Well, how about we agree claiming absolute knowledge without evidence is arrogant and leave it there? Seems more generally applicable and consistent.

The last level is anti-theism. On this level, senseless atheists not only parrot the above ignorance, but they like to put some STANK ON IT, too! For example: "You stunted simians will never get away from Christmas fantasy until you stop believing in Santa Claus". It's at this level that secularists seek to separate State from Church, and with a little luck, extinguish Church altogether.

I'm not an anti-theist, mostly due to the respect I have for the nature and intellect of some theists. Your ham-fisted stereotypes won't change that.

Make sense so far?

Your views are easily understood.

The sooner you stop trying to deceive me about what atheism is, the sooner we can cut through this nonsense and find out where you really stand.

Ask me any question you like and l will answer honestly. This applies regardless of whether you accept the answer.

I wouldn't repeat myself if I felt you didn't need to keep hearing the message.

Purely from the point of view of effective communication, that's an ineffective strategy, regardless of topic. Better off to rephrase or recast it. The original message failed, why would repitition suceed?

The sooner you stop trying to deceive me about what atheism is, the sooner we can cut through this nonsense and find out where you really stand.

Why would I bother deceiving you about the nature of atheism?

I wouldn't repeat myself if I felt you didn't need to keep hearing the message.

What's with the wink? Are we sharing a joke?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Too agnostic. See, there are several levels to an atheist's/agnostic's ignorance: Agnostics merely acknowledge that they don't know whether God exists, or not. This is where your lack of belief argument is most closely suited.

The next level is good old fashioned atheism. This is where the stink of arrogance really begins. On this level, pseudo scientists step in and announce the non existence of God as if "they've really been there, ya know"?

The last level is anti-theism. On this level, senseless atheists not only parrot the above ignorance, but they like to put some STANK ON IT, too! For example: "You stunted simians will never get away from Christmas fantasy until you stop believing in Santa Claus". It's at this level that secularists seek to separate State from Church, and with a little luck, extinguish Church altogether.

Make sense so far?

The sooner you stop trying to deceive me about what atheism is, the sooner we can cut through this nonsense and find out where you really stand.

You are very very wrong on all accounts.
Agnostacism isn't a level of Atheism. The sooner you can accept that the sooner you can stop being so wrong. Mabye..just maybe you can have a meaningful conversation.

 

[Athan]

Yep.
You are still intent on spreading bold faced lies.


I am not the least bit interested in your snake oil.
Especially since you have all but flat out stated you are not the least bit interested in truth or facts.


You can repeat the same lies over and over.
It only hurts your credibility.


Since I have already informed you of the truth of the matter and you are still repeating the same misinformation, I can safely assume you are more interested in your lies than you are in anything else.
Perhaps you should go back to preaching to the choir.
They are much more likely to agree with your lies since you are merely telling them what they want to hear.


Yes, your repeating yourself is about your feelings, not truth or facts.
I understand that.

The problem though, is that I am not one to coddle your feelings.
Especially when your feelings are what you use to justify telling bold faced lies.

I told you how it all works, and you're still playing games.

Here's an idea: why don't you talk about where you really stand with religion and we can compare notes?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I told you how it all works, and you're still playing games.

Here's an idea: why don't you talk about where you really stand with religion and we can compare notes?

And here's an idea...you could kindly respond to any or all of my posts.

 

[McBell]

I told you how it all works, and you're still playing games.

No, you told me how you want it to work.
I have been telling you that in the really real world it does not work that way.

Now if you are not willing to be honest, I have no reason to continue this discussion.

Here's an idea: why don't you talk about where you really stand with religion and we can compare notes?

Here's an idea, why don't you just tell me where I stand, what I think, what I believe and then attack that strawman.
Seeing as that is what you have been doing thus far, I fail to see why you even need me in the conversation.....

 

[Michael Colton]

I am late to this party and I did not read all eight pages of comments.

But to the OP: you have to actually define what you are talking about when you say 'Satanism' in order for the question to be even remotely answered.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Satanism and especially Laveyan Satanism is immature and horrible. I actually despise it for it's lack of value. It does not even bring forth any meaningful philosophy.
I use to go into Satanic chatrooms and they were just filled with some of the most despicable people ever.

 

[Michael Colton]

Satanism and especially Laveyan Satanism is immature and horrible. I actually despise it for it's lack of value. It does not even bring forth any meaningful philosophy.
I use to go into Satanic chatrooms and they were just filled with some of the most despicable people ever.

This is why I was wondering what the original poster had in mind when they asked the question. If they were speaking of LaVey, it is nothing more than extremist libertarianism with mumbo jumbo attached to it. Sort of like if you stuck Ayn Rand in a carnival and made her write scripture while intoxicated - out would come LaVey.

If the original poster was asking about some form of literal theism that worships an entity called 'Satan,' it is largely a nonexistent phenomenon that was made popular by Hollywood and the religious for the purpose of a bogeyman but never really existed in any serious or notable sense.

If they mean Luciferianism, then it is just another form of hyperindividualism with meaningless trappings thrown on.

 

[Sha'irullah]

This is why I was wondering what the original poster had in mind when they asked the question. If they were speaking of LaVey, it is nothing more than extremist libertarianism with mumbo jumbo attached to it. Sort of like if you stuck Ayn Rand in a carnival and made her write scripture while intoxicated - out would come LaVey.

If the original poster was asking about some form of literal theism that worships an entity called 'Satan,' it is largely a nonexistent phenomenon that was made popular by Hollywood and the religious for the purpose of a bogeyman but never really existed in any serious or notable sense.

If they mean Luciferianism, then it is just another form of hyperindividualism with meaningless trappings thrown on.

One thing Satanists on average love is drugs, they endorse hedonism regardless of it's impracticality. Guys who have usually professed to be Satanists tend to just be atheists who like using Satanism as a shock tactic. On top of this they are usually the dullards in the Atheist community.
Nothing positive has stemmed from Satanism yet alone Laveyan Satanism.

Luciferianism though is very rare and has little basis for even existing. It is just the same as LaVeyan Satanism but really is just an attempt to distinguish one group of dullards from the other group.

Something common amongst Satanism though is that they Love Ayn Rand though. She is often mentioned by Satanists along with Nietzsche and Hitchens. If you want to use philosophy on a practical level then use philosophy don,t become a Satanist. This seems to be what Satanists do, they try using the supposed "Philosophy" of LaVey and making it a religion. I just went straight to the source

 

[Michael Colton]

One thing Satanists on average love is drugs, they endorse hedonism regardless of it's impracticality. Guys who have usually professed to be Satanists tend to just be atheists who like using Satanism as a shock tactic. On top of this they are usually the dullards in the Atheist community.
Nothing positive has stemmed from Satanism yet alone Laveyan Satanism.

Luciferianism though is very rare and has little basis for even existing. It is just the same as LaVeyan Satanism but really is just an attempt to distinguish one group of dullards from the other group.

Something common amongst Satanism though is that they Love Ayn Rand though. She is often mentioned by Satanists

And she is equally as useless, in my opinion - and due to the influence of her followers, actually more detrimental. Satanism is truly irrelevant in every sense of the word.

 

[Sha'irullah]

And she is equally as useless, in my opinion - and due to the influence of her followers, actually more detrimental. Satanism is truly irrelevant in every sense of the word.

My despising of the Dark Lord's followers is great. If you really want to be a Left Hand Path sort of person you should be like me and practice The Dark Side of the Force!