• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I believe in the existence of information and energy, but not in souls. What does that make me by your classification?
Those things are compatible with the materialist philosophy.

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.

Matter and energy are part of the material universe and E=MCsquared . Information is stored in material forms and part of the material universe..
What would make an atheist not a materialist?
An example would be believing in ghosts but no gods.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Those things are compatible with the materialist philosophy.

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.

Matter and energy are part of the material universe and E=MCsquared . Information is stored in material forms and part of the material universe..

An example would be believing in ghosts but no gods.
Oh, that is supernaturalism then. Right then, most people that go through the trouble of calling themselves atheists seem to indeed be naturalists.

I don't see why it would be a problem for any reasonable religion, though.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Oh, that is supernaturalism then. Right then, most people that go through the trouble of calling themselves atheists seem to indeed be naturalists.

Correct, if we are talking of a naturalism/supernaturalism dichotomy.
I don't see why it would be a problem for any reasonable religion, though.
Because almost everything called religion has elements of belief involving supernaturalism.
 

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
Does it make sense to use satan for an atheistic religious group?

Not only for an atheistic religious group but also for Jews. We don't believe in Satan which for us, it is only a concept
to illustrate the evil inclination in man. Satan as a being does not exist.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
It doesn't make any sense.
But who says everything should?
If anyone likes doing so, then more power to'm.

The original question is really just a personal opinion question. I'm not expecting anyone who answers to actually make an argument for these atheistic Satanist groups to change their religions names or descriptions, etc
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
The definition of atheism can be rather fluid, especially when atheists are defining atheism. A rather broad term they might use is a lack of god-belief. To further complicate matters, the term "god" can also be rather fluid--from various monotheistic definitions to polytheist definitions to tribal egregores/maras to religious egregores to nature spirits to idols. With the fluidity of both terms you can cover a wide range. Buddhism, for example, is not monotheistic (empty throne,) is not materialist (does not deny things that might be "beyond range,") and seeks for an individual to become higher than the "gods" (tribal/religious egregores, many of which are under the influence of Mara.)

atheism is literally defined by theism. Theism is broad, therefore, an ''atheist'' per definition, is an atheist broadly. Almost all 'theistic'' ideas are excluded.

Atheism, as defined as lack of god-belief, is not limited to materialism, either.
It almost is, but I agree; it isn't completely limited to materialism.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Does it make sense to use satan for an atheistic religious group?

Not only for an atheistic religious group but also for Jews. We don't believe in Satan which for us, it is only a concept
to illustrate the evil inclination in man. Satan as a being does not exist.

opinions seem to differ. /about who satan is, in Judaism.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Like "The Satanic Temple"? Some are Atheists.

Any group, or individual who claims atheistic Satanism. Further than that, it's about statistics, how many self proclaimed Satanists actually 'joined' one of the groups. And that excludes theistic satanic groups. Hence, we can't really specify a certain group/s/.
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
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?
Are you talking about Anton LaVey's church of satanism? Well he was a weird guy. Pretty metal. He did it for the same reason many death metal bands use satanic imagry in their lyrics and designs. Lets not pretend that satanists don't want a little shock value. And satan is just such a tantalizing character isn't he? Not to mention the whole point of the church of satan is to moch christianity and other similar worldviews. So satan seems the obvious choice given that Christianity is the religion that is dominant in the western world. Had he existed in India he would have chosen probably a very different figure.
 

Luciferi Baphomet

Lucifer, is my Liberator
Any group, or individual who claims atheistic Satanism. Further than that, it's about statistics, how many self proclaimed Satanists actually 'joined' one of the groups. And that excludes theistic satanic groups. Hence, we can't really specify a certain group/s/.
Oh I see.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I would say that the loose definition of the word "religion" is a particular system of faith and worship. Would you agree? If so, what is atheism faithful to and/or worshiping?
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creationof a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moralcode governing the conduct of human affairs."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion

I think it's missing the communal aspect of religion, but hopefully it gets across the idea that a religion doesn't need to have a god or gods.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Those things are compatible with the materialist philosophy.

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.

Matter and energy are part of the material universe and E=MCsquared . Information is stored in material forms and part of the material universe..

An example would be believing in ghosts but no gods.
Why would believing in ghosts make someone not a materialist? Is there something about ghosts that implies that - if they existed - they can't have a material basis?

I recognize that the material evidence for ghostsis poor, but so is the material evidence for the Loch Ness Monster; we don't generally assume that Nessie is immaterial.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Why would believing in ghosts make someone not a materialist? Is there something about ghosts that implies that - if they existed - they can't have a material basis?
The term 'materialism' includes the idea that everything that exists is composed of physical matter and energy including consciousness. This term is a philosophy intended to exclude belief in spiritual or non-physical realms. We have had this debate a few times before and your expanded view of materialism is not what the term was created to mean.
I recognize that the material evidence for ghostsis poor,
I, of course, strongly disagree.
but so is the material evidence for the Loch Ness Monster; we don't generally assume that Nessie is immaterial.
That is because some people believe Nessie is a physical animal, hence something that would not contradict the materialist philosophy. If they claim that Nessie is a ghost that sometimes materializes then that would contradict the materialist worldview.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The term 'materialism' includes the idea that everything that exists is composed of physical matter and energy including consciousness. This term is a philosophy intended to exclude belief in spiritual or non-physical realms. We have had this debate a few times before and your expanded view of materialism is not what the term was created to mean.
It's not how YOU use the term, but you aren't some sort of authority on the proper use of "materialism".

There's a long history - that you choose to ignore - that defines anything that interacts with matter as material itself. IOW, if ghosts could interact with matter in any way whatsoever, then ghosts would also be material.

Of course, the line between "material" and "immaterial" tends to shift over time based on available evidence: "immaterial" things that are well-established becoke "material". This lets the dualists keep up their claim that materialists never accept the existence of the immaterial. We do, of course; it's just we accept it when it's established that it actually exists.

I, of course, strongly disagree.
... right now. Other times, you've acknowledged the poor quality of evidence for ghosts by making excuses for why it's poor and criticizing those who ask for the evidence for ghosts to meet a reasonable standard.

That is because some people believe Nessie is a physical animal, hence something that would not contradict the materialist philosophy. If they claim that Nessie is a ghost that sometimes materializes then that would contradict the materialist worldview.
How so? Plenty of physical phenomena materialize and dematerialize. Why would that make Nessie immaterial?

... or are you just begging the question by slapping the label "ghost" (which you've conveniently defined as something immaterial)?
 

Sutekh

Priest of Odin
Premium Member
An archetype simply doesn't work.
An archetype can work either way. As many of us may know Satan means "Adversary of Opposer," "the one who questions." I regard Satan as the adversarial opposer of light itself. Satan can stand for many things symbolically, for one thing he represents Pride, Carnality, Liberty, and in my own version greed, and wrath as well. As a Satanist myself I regard him to be a force in nature, a force that drives man to survive. When Satan represents "the one who questions," I regard this statement to be connected with the Satanists mindset including that of others of the WLHP. You might not have experienced what I have experienced myself through months of initiation and magickal study and practice, but once one practices magick for practical use to ones Internal self it changes the persons destiny and mindset along the path. The person starts to question certain things of the use of faith and its technology if its either practical or not practical. Some of us may experience Set as well, I view Set as the god of Isolation, Set can be used as an archetype as well, for he is the "cutter of dissolution and weakness," for he is chaotic in man and he symbolically isolates the initiate from many things to the objective Universes including mans fellow beings or friends.
 

Sutekh

Priest of Odin
Premium Member
So for atheistic Satanism I'd say it comes down to edginess and shock value, and not much else.
Your mileage may very, I believe in the black flame itself the very gift of realization and questioning over other conventional ways whether they are practical or impractical.
 

dgirl1986

Big Queer Chesticles!
It makes sense if you want to challenge the people that are constantly harassing you for not being a believer. It also seems to work for certain personality types or people who have been so damaged by religion that they want to protest in some way.
 

dgirl1986

Big Queer Chesticles!
True, but this is reactionary . Many people who feel slighted by religion also lash out by becoming angry atheists, quasi-agnostics, etc, as well. Or choose an opposing religion, so forth.
This is not so much an Satanist, as a 'anti-christianity', /whatever they imagine Christianity to represent,

Possibly. You also get atheistic pagans as well so I guess it really depends on the group of individuals rather than trying to make a blanket statement.
 
Top