Satanism-Is it really so bad?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: ItsDarts And here you make the unsupported claim that anything other than "true humans" existed then or now. His other "miracles" as described in the bible seem nothing more than parlor tricks and snake oil and again, nothing that is corroborated by third parties at anytime in history. You (and other theists) may be convinced that the supernatural exists, but there is nothing to support this claim. We do know that many things that use to be considered miraculous, can be explained by natural means today.

Obviously you can't study something 2000 years in the past you you really have no place to comment.

Nonsense, if a claim is made, it can either be tested or it can't, if it can't, its rational to assume the claim is false or at best unknown, until further evidence says otherwise. I won't bother going into the "Historocity of Jesus" debate as that is questionable as well.

Science can only test what it can physically verify. You have the claim that a supernatural human came back from the dead. So instead you just compare it to a normal human and say it's impossible. If Jesus really was the supernatural figure as written then he wouldn't be bound by the same limitations. Since you don't have a modern Jesus to grab and study your just limiting the information in consideration and making a judgement call on your own thought up hypothesis.

Especially taking into account God wouldn't even desire (is such an emotion is the right word) evidence to rise leading to proof of his existence. The reason for free will is so people can choose to reject or accept. Hence if everyone knew God was real then who would really put stock into Satanism, or become an atheist.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: HelioPrime Science can only test what it can physically verify.

And religion can't test or verify anything.

Science 1, Religion 0.

[Court463]

Quote by: HelioPrime Obviously you can't study something 2000 years in the past you you really have no place to comment.

Yes you can, they have been studying and testing Jesus's miracles for a while now, among other things in the Bible like Moses parting the Red Sea. And they have come up with logical explanations to most of them.

Here is a Link to a site that provides explanation for most of the miralces, its not a very good one, I know of another one that was an actual discovery channel documentary if i find it I'll post it.

Miracles of Jesus Christ?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: nerdvincent And religion can't test or verify anything. Science 1, Religion 0.

According to what scale?

I wasn't aware religion and science were things that can be compared directly.

Lets talk about souls. Does science have anything to offer on that subject? Ops... nope.

Religion 1, science zero

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: HelioPrime Obviously you can't study something 2000 years in the past you you really have no place to comment.

If it only happens once, its no rational reason to assume it happened at all. Nice of you to ignore the fact that there is no 3rd party corroboration of any miricles. Faith that it happened is irrational and intellectually dishonest.

Science can only test what it can physically verify. You have the claim that a supernatural human came back from the dead. So instead you just compare it to a normal human and say it's impossible. If Jesus really was the supernatural figure as written then he wouldn't be bound by the same limitations. Since you don't have a modern Jesus to grab and study your just limiting the information in consideration and making a judgement call on your own thought up hypothesis. Especially taking into account God wouldn't even desire (is such an emotion is the right word) evidence to rise leading to proof of his existence. The reason for free will is so people can choose to reject or accept. Hence if everyone knew God was real then who would really put stock into Satanism, or become an atheist.

Jesus isn't the only one to have claimed to come back from the dead, yet the only other claim is at the time of jesus, and again no 3rd party verification at all. I saw a unicorn today, do you believe me? why not? Requiring faith is a cop out answer. God could prove his existence and still leave us with free will to choose to follow him or put him on trial for all the BS he did on the OT. Assuming for the sake of argument your god existed, he could have destroyed satan instead of just banishing him to our planet to screw with us.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: HelioPrime According to what scale? I wasn't aware religion and science were things that can be compared directly. Lets talk about souls. Does science have anything to offer on that subject? Ops... nope. Religion 1, science zero

The CLAIMS in religion are things that can be compared and studied through science. We know lightening isn't the process of Thor slamming his hammer up in the coulds. We know the god Posieden doesn't cause Tsunamis or rough seas. We know that dead bodies start to decay within minutes of death and within 30 mins, the brain turns to mushy grey matter. We also know that every attemtp to even detect anything supernatural has failed because we've never been able to break the laws of physics. If and when that ever happens, then we know we were wrong about the laws of physics and we can come up with a new theory to explain it.

[Piscean]

Satanists seem like play charactors to me. The christian church is doing satans bidding much better than the satanists lol

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: HelioPrime Lets talk about souls. Does science have anything to offer on that subject? Ops... nope.

Same for religion. It may claim that the earth is flat, but it'll never prove anything.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: ItsDarts This is not what Satanism teaches. It teaches to help those who deserve help. It basically teaches the Golden Rule and the Eye for an Eye rule. Unlike Christianity who teaches to turn the other cheek in the face of adversity. The philosophy is based off of Neitzchie and Ayn Rand. Source None of these doctrines seems to be over the top or unreasonable.

Something tells me this is more kinda the "Joel Osteen" variety of Satanism. But even then...you can still see the imprint of the infernal one in it. And the fact that it does not seem outright abominable to many people in this thread and, in fact, seems to have some logic to the same should not be surprising. We're talking about the temptation to which man and woman first fell prey. And that same temptation seems not to have lost any of its draw, for all its wear. It is that venerable sin of pride.

The quoted lists are the garden all over again. Tell men that they can be gods and then have them assert their perceived godhood by breaking the rules. Then, when you're called to account for your actions, pawn the blame off on someone or something else.

Noticeable and disturbing aspects of your quote:

1.) The encouragement toward murder.
2.) Obsession with the visceral (as an intended distraction from the spiritual).
3.) Deferment of responsibility.
4.) Extreme detrimental hedonism.
5.) Myopic selfishness.
6.) The discouragement of any kind of charity.
7.) Flagrant attempts to engage the believer in any and all destructive and prohibited behaviors.

If we were all to live like this, the world really would go to Hell post haste. Don't be a schmuck: Satanism really is the oldest trick in the book.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Something tells me this is more kinda the "Joel Osteen" variety of Satanism. But even then...you can still see the imprint of the infernal one in it. And the fact that it does not seem outright abominable to many people in this thread and, in fact, seems to have some logic to the same should not be surprising. We're talking about the temptation to which man and woman first fell prey. And that same temptation seems not to have lost any of its draw, for all its wear. It is that venerable sin of pride. The quoted lists are the garden all over again. Tell men that they can be gods and then have them assert their perceived godhood by breaking the rules. Then, when you're called to account for your actions, pawn the blame off on someone or something else. Noticeable and disturbing aspects of your quote: 1.) The encouragement toward murder. 2.) Obsession with the visceral (as an intended distraction from the spiritual). 3.) Deferment of responsibility. 4.) Extreme detrimental hedonism. 5.) Myopic selfishness. 6.) The discouragement of any kind of charity. 7.) Flagrant attempts to engage the believer in any and all destructive and prohibited behaviors. If we were all to live like this, the world really would go to Hell post haste. Don't be a schmuck: Satanism really is the oldest trick in the book.

Levey Satanism is none of these things...

1.) how did you come to this conculusion?
2.)Spirits don't exist, this would be expected.
3.)How did you come to this conclusion?
4.) Hedonism detrimental how? Like anything, when practiced safely, its fun and pleasurable. Are we not allowed pleasure?
5.) How did you come to this conclusion?
6.) Wrong
7.) How did you come to this conclusion? Prohibited behaviors? According to what standard?

[phoenix_fire]

1.) The encouragement toward murder.

5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek.

Eye for an eye, right?

7. Satan represents humanity as just another animal species

Animals kill each other.

8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.

Including murder.

10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

Nothing about not killing humans.

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop. If they do not stop, destroy them.

Seems pretty straightforward.

2.) This is obviously what Satan wants you to believe. Would it not bother an atheist espousing this system that its principle is to do anything and everything possible to incite God's wrath?

3.) By the repeated insistence that people are visceral animals. I can't instill in my cat that it's wrong to eat my goldfish, no matter how much I try. My cat is selfish. She kills anything that moves, she gratifies any desire that she has, she takes what she wants as long as nothing stops her, and I'm pretty lenient on her because she's an animal. And Satanism allows you to be selfish and gratify all your desires (even murder) because it calls you an animal and says that you can't be held responsible. So can defer their selfishness and hedonism to their animal nature, even though they really know better.

4.) Do you see any moderation built into the system? Nyet. Animals don't know what moderation is. Moderation is oppressive. If you want to drink yourself to death, do it. This is what the text is saying.

5.) Myopic selfishness.

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence.

Self-indulgence

4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates.

The arrogance of making that judgment for yourself when all the world is full of ingrates. That, and it gives you leave to only give to yourself and the people you like/think you can get something from. *sings* sel-fish

6.) No, I'm right. *answers in kind*

7.) Well, the witchcraft one was a dead giveaway. If you're being materialistic...aaaaaaaaand, as you put it, "spirits don't exist", why oh why would that bit about witchcraft be in there? Doesn't it just...stick in your craw a bit, Mr. Atheist? It just doesn't fit. Obviously, it's only there because God hates witchcraft. What standard, you ask? Look at the name of the religion fcol! Whose d'ya think?

[Morality Games]

I think Satanism is kind of cheesy, so I'm not one, but there are some misconceptions that ought to be addressed.

Eye for an eye, right?

Yeah.

Satan represents humanity as just another animal species.

Humans are animals. Your aggressive response to this post indicates the animal that is you -- you see something threatening (in this case, ideas) and go on the offensive. That is a rule throughout nature.

Including murder.

Satanism is a man's response to Roman Catholicism. Murder, though frequently termed a sinful act in everyday conversation, is not one of the seven character traits called sins. Murder can still be wrong in Santanism if nobody "got in your way". While the seven sins are to be embraced, there are rules of conduct -- you aren't supposed to bother other people when they don't bother you (the principle of the revenge morality works both ways). Killing them just because you derived pleasure from it violates that guideline. Sins must be enjoyed, but if a person gets out of control, then they must be destroyed.

Nothing about not killing humans.

It is a deliberate counter against the disregard for animals some people perceive to be in the Bible (Christians rarely notice this, but this does bother other people) and other holy texts, not an admission that murder is permissable.

Relations between humans are more complex and are covered by interpretations of the other principles. Killing is acceptable in Satanism, under certain conditions, but the same can be said of various Christian theologies that have cropped up through history. Murder is not an ideal of Satanism -- they don't regard the practice much more highly than anyone else. But they aren't shy about it when somebody themselves is a murderer.

This is obviously what Satan wants you to believe. Would it not bother an atheist espousing this system that its principle is to do anything and everything possible to incite God's wrath?

Satanists don't actually believe in Christian metaphysics. They just parody them because they think the religion is silly. So no, they aren't worried about inciting God's wrath.

Do you see any moderation built into the system? Nyet. Animals don't know what moderation is. Moderation is oppressive. If you want to drink yourself to death, do it. This is what the text is saying.

There is moderation within the system. Look more closely.

Bear in mind there is a Satantic Bible. It is more elaborate than the abstract ideas that have been presented here.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Morality Games Humans are animals. Your aggressive response to this post indicates the animal that is you -- you see something threatening (in this case, ideas) and go on the offensive. That is a rule throughout nature.

How many animals willingly go through life not attempting to reproduce?

People are above animals because we can both live our lives beyond many of the primal urges as well as even do things to ourselves knowingly possessing the knowledge it is harmful.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: HelioPrime How many animals willingly go through life not attempting to reproduce? People are above animals because we can both live our lives beyond many of the primal urges as well as even do things to ourselves knowingly possessing the knowledge it is harmful.

Humans have a highly developed intellect, but we never get beyond any of our primal urges. We just react to them differently. "Getting beyond" would mean they no longer affect us. Choosing not to reproduce can be seen as a way of satisying an urge not related to procreation, like security (desire to avoid the messiness of contraception and relationships).

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Morality Games Humans have a highly developed intellect, but we never get beyond any of our primal urges. We just react to them differently. "Getting beyond" would mean they no longer affect us. Choosing not to reproduce can be seen as a way of satisying an urge not related to procreation, like security (desire to avoid the messiness of contraception and relationships).

Of course we can go beyond basic urges.

People can live out lives without giving into urges of self gratifying sex, or can choose to isolate themselves from social settings.

The harm factor is also the difference. Animals will not cut off their own sexual organs as a sign of devotion. Man has the ability to suppress and choose to deny urges.

[JaneDoe321]

I am not so sure that self-mutilation (physical or psychological) regardless of the "inspiration" is something which sets us "above" other animals.

[Morality Games]

Of course we can go beyond basic urges. People can live out lives without giving into urges of self gratifying sex, or can choose to isolate themselves from social settings. The harm factor is also the difference. Animals will not cut off their own sexual organs as a sign of devotion. Man has the ability to suppress and choose to deny urges.

Consciousness and instincts are so intergrated that any attempt to distinguish between the two is artificial at best and fallacious at worst. Instincts (and the urges that accompany them) are instrumental to the manner in which thinking, emoting, feeling, and memorizing turn out. Their presence, though frequently unacknowledged, is constant.

Remember an instinct doesn't command, "You will do this." They suggest, "You should do this." What's important is that they always do something to influence conscious ideations -- even if a person ultimately decides to act contrary to one instinct, it had to have played a role in the way his cognitive processes took place.

Moreover, some instincts, depending on the person and circumstance, exert more influence than others. Cutting of your sexual organs is a decision based on information gathered from the world around you, but instincts like "you should live" or "you should be secure" probably functioned as advisors in this situation. In order for external stimulus to be considered relevant (like the kind which persuaded the person to cut off their sexual organs) then there has to be some kind of internalized motivation to fear the information received.

It is inconceivable humans could exist without instincts and still be considered human -- emotions and feelings would go out the window, and most memory along with then, and if we could still think, we would be comparable to really slow computers passively collecting data. Desire and motivation would go out the window, and life would be pretty brief. Soon, the species would be extinct.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: phoenix_fire 1.) The encouragement toward murder. Eye for an eye, right?

This has nothing to do with "murder" and obviously of someone kills me, I can't kill them back. But there is nothing wrong with eye for an eye, in my eyes (pun intended).

Satan represents humanity as just another animal species.

I find it disingenuous that you left out THIS part......"sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!"

Animals kill each other.

For food, just like us, however, we're the only animal that hunts other animals for fun. Satanism discourages this.

Including murder.

Wrong. It doesn't include murder as one of the "so called" sins as this would go against the main premise of Satanism, seek pleasure but not at the expense of others, which is similar to Humanism.

Nothing about not killing humans. Seems pretty straightforward.

We kill humans all the time, there is a difference between killing and murder. Nowhere does Satanism promote Killing or murder. If you need a book to tell you not to murder, then please by all means, continue your beliefs in the supernatural law giver and his command not to murder.

2.) This is obviously what Satan wants you to believe. Would it not bother an atheist espousing this system that its principle is to do anything and everything possible to incite God's wrath?

There is no "Satan" in Satanism and there is no God in Satanism, its JUST A NAME used to piss of the church.

3.) By the repeated insistence that people are visceral animals. I can't instill in my cat that it's wrong to eat my goldfish, no matter how much I try. My cat is selfish. She kills anything that moves, she gratifies any desire that she has, she takes what she wants as long as nothing stops her, and I'm pretty lenient on her because she's an animal. And Satanism allows you to be selfish and gratify all your desires (even murder) because it calls you an animal and says that you can't be held responsible. So can defer their selfishness and hedonism to their animal nature, even though they really know better. Throwing in the (even murder) comment is your opinion and there is nothing in Satanism that promotes Murder, even for self gratification. Again, self gratification is based on not harming others. 4.) Do you see any moderation built into the system? Nyet. Animals don't know what moderation is. Moderation is oppressive. If you want to drink yourself to death, do it. This is what the text is saying. Its your life, you only get one life.

Even though we are animals, we DO know moderation. Since Satanism promotes indulgence, it is counter productive to indulge beyond your capacity, i.e. drink yourself to death. Death is not an indulgence.

5.) Myopic selfishness. Self-indulgence

Stop twisting words and context to support your argument, there is a difference between "indulgence" and "Self-indulgence".

Indulgence = The act or an instance of indulging; gratification
Self-indulgence = Excessive indulgence of one's own appetites and desires.

The arrogance of making that judgment for yourself when all the world is full of ingrates.

You just called the kettle black, Ms Pot. Your just said the world is full of ingrates ROFLMAO. But anyway, you see this as a problem? Why help ingrates?

That, and it gives you leave to only give to yourself and the people you like/think you can get something from. *sings* sel-fish

Where did you get this? Is this how YOU think but don't act because your bible tells you so? "Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit"

[quote]6.) No, I'm right. *answers in kind*[/quiote] No, you're wrong, like I said.... but ok.... try this....."Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!" and "Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates!" It's resonsible to be charitable and its also kind to be charitable.

7.) Well, the witchcraft one was a dead giveaway. If you're being materialistic...aaaaaaaaand, as you put it, "spirits don't exist", why oh why would that bit about witchcraft be in there? Doesn't it just...stick in your craw a bit, Mr. Atheist? It just doesn't fit. Obviously, it's only there because God hates witchcraft. What standard, you ask? Look at the name of the religion fcol! Whose d'ya think?

Uhhhh where did you get Witchcraft from? As far as I know Satanism isn't about Witchraft. It does speak of "Lesser Magic" and "Greater Magic" but not in the sense of anything supernatural or having anything to do with witches. Its a metaphor. Lesser Magic is about obtaining what you want (not through supernatureal powers) and Greater Magic is about the various rituals.

It seems that you built your argument on preconceived notions and straw man arguments.