Does it make sense to use ''Satan'' for an atheistic religious group?

[McBell]

If they believe in Satan, they're not atheists, are they??

Do you believe Satan is a god?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Satan isn't deified in Christian theology, so why wouldn't it make sense for atheists to utilize the concept? They can do the same things the Christians do - acknowledge it as a thing, without deifying it.

I guess so. But wouldn't Superman have been a better choice?

 

[EtuMalku]

If they believe in Satan, they're not atheists, are they??

There is no reason an atheist cannot embrace an archetypal structure and its mythology into their life . . . you are confusing theistic Satanists with other Satanists

 

[Desert Snake]

You're asking two different questions here . . . Post Title:
Does it make sense to use ''Satan'' for an atheistic religious group?
What exactly is the question?

Feel free to answer either one, or both.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

Does it actually make sense for an atheistic religious group to use what they consider an ''archetype'' /fictional character, as part of their atheistic religious ideas? Why?

And why not? All gods, goddesses and demons are archetypes, if you think about it and even if people believe in their actual existence. The Church of Satan considers Satanism to be an atheistic religion. If it's confusing then take, for example, secular humanism with its rituals and ceremonies for atheists. Damn, they even organize something akin to the Christian Mass with songs, lectures about science instead of sermons and shared meals at the end instead of the Holy Communion. Satanic rituals are not that much different from humanist ceremonies, only a little bit more spooky.

 

[Desert Snake]

And why not? All gods, goddesses and demons are archetypes, if you think about it and even if people believe in their actual existence. The Church of Satan considers Satanism to be an atheistic religion. If it's confusing then take, for example, secular humanism with its rituals and ceremonies for atheists. Damn, they even organize something akin to the Christian Mass with songs, lectures about science instead of sermons and shared meals at the end instead of the Holy Communion. Satanic rituals are not that much different from humanist ceremonies, only a little bit more spooky.

This of course is from an atheistic viewpoint. We can use Jesus as an example. Part of being an actual Xian or follower of Christ, is believing in the 'realness'' of Jesus, whether as God Himself, or the Son of God, in the the trinity, or God, in a trinity. Merely using Jesus as an ''archetype'', misses the mark as to what the 'being', /literally Jesus/, does, is, and 'who', Jesus is //a living God. An archetype simply doesn't work.
Now, when it comes to ''Satan'', clearly, the character in /tradition, is not merely an archetype, it isn't supposed to be a fictional character.

Are you telling me that you cannot distinguish the consequential differences between a 'fictional' character, and a real being?

 

[EtuMalku]

Does it make sense to use ''Satan'' for an atheistic religious group?
There are no 'atheistic religious' groups that would be an oxymoron. So this question is unanswerable . . .

Does it actually make sense for an atheistic religious group to use what they consider an ''archetype'' /fictional character, as part of their atheistic religious ideas?
There are no 'atheistic religious' groups that would be an oxymoron. So this question is unanswerable . . .

So again, I ask . . . what is the question here?

 

[Desert Snake]

Does it make sense to use ''Satan'' for an atheistic religious group?
There are no 'atheistic religious' groups that would be an oxymoron. So this question is unanswerable . . .

Does it actually make sense for an atheistic religious group to use what they consider an ''archetype'' /fictional character, as part of their atheistic religious ideas?
There are no 'atheistic religious' groups that would be an oxymoron. So this question is unanswerable . . .

So again, I ask . . . what is the question here?

There are atheistic Buddhists.

The OP question is quite clear.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There are no 'atheistic religious' groups that would be an oxymoron. So this question is unanswerable . . .

How would you describe the Church of Satan?

 

[EtuMalku]

Religion is defined as an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence
Buddhism is a way of life, a philosophy for exterminating one's cause of suffering . . .
The Church of Satan is a cabal of individuals who share the basis of Anton LaVey's philosophy . . .
Neither address the concept of an order of existence (cosmology)

The OP is as clear as mud . . .

 

[Erebus]

Does it actually make sense for an atheistic religious group to use what they consider an ''archetype'' /fictional character, as part of their atheistic religious ideas? Why?

If they want to use Satan as a symbol rather than a literal deity, then fair play to them. I can certainly understand somebody finding meaning in an archetype even if a lot of that meaning can be boiled down to shock factor.

The one thing I don't get is when LaVeyans say anybody who actually worships the devil isn't a Satanist. That one always struck me as weird.

 

[EtuMalku]

If they want to use Satan as a symbol rather than a literal deity, then fair play to them. I can certainly understand somebody finding meaning in an archetype even if a lot of that meaning can be boiled down to shock factor.

The one thing I don't get is when LaVeyans say anybody who actually worships the devil isn't a Satanist. That one always struck me as weird.

The Cos uses a tactic in which they understand their philosophy of Satanism to be the correct one and thus any others are incorrect, this reinforces the CoS' stance as the only true form of Satanism. They leave no wiggle space for any other Satanic organization.

 

[Jumi]

We can use Jesus as an example. Part of being an actual Xian or follower of Christ, is believing in the 'realness'' of Jesus, whether as God Himself, or the Son of God, in the the trinity, or God, in a trinity. Merely using Jesus as an ''archetype'', misses the mark as to what the 'being', /literally Jesus/, does, is, and 'who', Jesus is //a living God. An archetype simply doesn't work.

There are people who consider themselves Christian, but don't believe Jesus exists/existed as anything but an archetype. These people would also have a problem with the trinity and the Nicene Creed.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Buddhism is a way of life, a philosophy for exterminating one's cause of suffering . . .

We're not daleks you know.

 

[JoStories]

Does it actually make sense for an atheistic religious group to use what they consider an ''archetype'' /fictional character, as part of their atheistic religious ideas? Why?

The words atheistic and religious group do not belong in the same sentence. They are dichotomous terms. An atheist has NO belief in any god so religion would be a non sequitor.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The words atheistic and religious group do not belong in the same sentence. They are dichotomous terms. An atheist has NO belief in any god so religion would be a non sequitor.

I disagree. Obviously the majority of religions include supernatural beliefs. But they do not neccessarily have to do so. The Church of Satan would be an example of a religion which is atheistic in nature. It doesn't particularly make sense to me, personally, but it's atheistic, and it has all the trappings of religion.

 

[Erebus]

The Cos uses a tactic in which they understand their philosophy of Satanism to be the correct one and thus any others are incorrect, this reinforces the CoS' stance as the only true form of Satanism. They leave no wiggle space for any other Satanic organization.

Sure, I get that much. I don't get why they want to be seen as the only legitimate form of Satanism. It just seems kind of petty. It also strikes me as fighting a losing battle. Ask a thousand people what Satanism is and I'd put money on 999 of them saying "devil worship."

It's a tactic that I don't really understand the point of at the end of the day.

 

[JoStories]

I disagree. Obviously the majority of religions include supernatural beliefs. But they do not neccessarily have to do so. The Church of Satan would be an example of a religion which is atheistic in nature. It doesn't particularly make sense to me, personally, but it's atheistic, and it has all the trappings of religion.

I suppose, in a manner of thinking, that does make sense. However, I don't think of most atheists as Satanists. To me, that is admitting that there is a being similar to God, only God's absolute opposite. So to me, it seemed like an atheist would have nothing to do with either. However, as I said Lewis, you do have a point there.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I suppose, in a manner of thinking, that does make sense. However, I don't think of most atheists as Satanists. To me, that is admitting that there is a being similar to God, only God's absolute opposite. So to me, it seemed like an atheist would have nothing to do with either. However, as I said Lewis, you do have a point there.

Funnily enough, members of the Church of Satan don't actually believe there is such a being as Satan. They see it as a metaphor. There obviously are theological Satanists/Luciferarians but Church of Satan is atheistic. No belief in Gods, including Satan.

 

[leibowde84]

Does it actually make sense for an atheistic religious group to use what they consider an ''archetype'' /fictional character, as part of their atheistic religious ideas? Why?

What is an atheistic religious idea? Isn't that self-contradictory?