Ask a satanist

  • Thread starter Thread starter kuroshashu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kuroshashu

Guest
Hello all,
Thread title says it all really. I’m an atheistic satanist, as opposed to a theistic satanist and I don’t really go in for the rituals since it’s clear in the satanic bible that they’re only for those who miss the ritual of their old faith and I haven’t got one. Erm, otherwise, ask away. I’m not really sure what you might want to know, so I’ll just leave it at that.

Cheers all
KS
 
Well for starters … what is an atheistic satanist? We know it’s not theistic satanism. If you believe in satan … how do you not believe in God?
 
so, you don’t have any deities and you don’t do any practices - what’s the point of having a religious designation for yourself?
 
Well, it’s partially in recognition that there are certain benefits to religion such as community. So in part it’s an attempt to set-up a structure in which that positive can be harnessed without dogma etc.

Secondarily, it’s a protest in the form of a parody. That’s the reason behind all the satanic symbolism even though we don’t believe satan exists.

And thirdly, the main reason that I use the designation is that it accurately describes my position: that since in your life there is no higher power than yourself, you are your own lord and saviour. You ought to worship in the manner that pleases your master (you) best.

The only dogma of satanism is that there is no dogma and since you’re your own god you change the rules as you go, so there’s variety within this church, but then what church isn’t varied?
 
Also, LaVey chose the name ‘Satanism’, for his ‘religion’, because in Hebrew it means ‘adversary’. So it is an adversary to the theistic religions, such as Christianity and other Right-Hand paths.
LaVeyan Satanism, atheistic satanism, has no dogmas? Aren’t hedonism, individualism and ‘eye for an eye’ satanic dogmas?
 
Doesn’t sound like there is much point in “community”. what do all these individual gods need with each other. You are all living in your own reality, developed by yourselves. What do you need with each other? If you need each other, you aren’t consistent with your original belief system. No matter what you do you are only copying what has already been done. Not to sound disrespectful but it sounds so loose there is no sound premise here. It sounds just so egotisitcal. To simply be something, like satanic, to oppose what already is established, organized religion, but then to fashion yourself after what has already been defined as organized religion seems useless.
 
Sorry, a bit more structure.
That last answer was for Ian Corrigan, being the only question saw at the time.

LaSalle: A theistic satanist believes in satan and usually yahweh. They believe large chunks of the bible, but think that the christians are backing the wrong side.

The atheistic satanist denies the existence of the supernatural and uses the term ‘satan’ in the more subtle way, familiar to some theologians, that means man’s animalistic nature. Satanism basically advocates recognition of and reconciliation with the fact that we are just animals working in our own interests as we define them.

Benjamin8o8: Nothing positive I’m afraid. I really hope I don’t offend, since that’s not my intention nor my desire, but I want to answer honestly.

I’m not sure how cynically it’s executed, but the church structure appears to be mostly a power-grab by the religiously inclined. As I say, many probably believe in what they’re doing, but I’m sure there are quite a few who’ve either never had or have lost faith and just stay in it for the perks/power.

KS
 
People often claim that religion is about power. In this secular world I don’t see much formal power in organized religion. Any power that the Church might have in the world appears through influence because of Love. Love of Truth.

One of the basic premises of Christianity is that we are not mere animals. Modern psychology and biology has had a lot to do with this inclination to view man as just another animal. But there is an alternative view, even in science, that man is more than his parts. No mere animal can “will” something. Man can use his will to stop and action or engage in an action. A dog or a cat cannot.

Christianity does promote the idea that we can be “like God” so in that sense I think you are on the right track. We simply believe that you become more godlike by joining yourself with God, not defining yourself as god. Again, it seems incongruent to claim that man is a mere “animal” and then propose that each man can be his own god. Animal imlies lack of free will, more instinct. A behaviorist would even claim that there is no such thing as free will. How can someone be a god who has no free will. You then cannot be in charge of your own destiny. When man can control life and death, then claim to be a god. We will never control those things, we only manipulate them.

Respectfully
 
To Mrschocolate42:

The term ‘manipulate’ is a synonym of the term ‘control’…

From what I can tell, these Satanists don’t use ‘god’ as you mean it. They use it to mean that they themselves are in control of their own lives, and their will is the most important thing for them, not the will of the Bible or of some church. They use it to show that they hold only themselves and their feelings, morals, etc, to be important. That doesn’t mean that they should disregard all other people, as one may think. Altruism is intrinsic of the human species, and any other social species, and one can make himself happy simply by helping others.

You cannot know if cats have free will. You cannot even truly know if I have free will, because you aren’t me and can only account for your own will.
This is the problem I have with Christianity, man is regarded as being superior to all other species, as a king onto them.
 
iKnighty: You’re quite right about the origin of the name. My mistake for neglecting to mention that.

Also, yes hedonism, individualism and vengeance are encouraged. Indeed, it’d be a very short book if it merely said ‘do as you like’. However, it’s made very clear in the book that these are not dogma, they’re more attempts to counter religiously/socially imposed inhibitions so that you’re left free to act on your natural impulse.

This doesn’t mean that you belt everyone who looks at you funny, it just means that you don’t arbitrarily prohibit yourself from doing so.

Mrschocolate42: Please, fire on all cannons. I’m difficult to insult :P.

You’re right in a sense; we oppose religion, but mainly for its dogma. We encourage recognition of humanity’s primal nature and religious ceremony/community do cater to a basal human need and therefore so do we. (Edited)

On your second post: That you don’t see much power in the church is partially myopia and partially signs of progress on our part. The church can still, say, outlaw gay marriage and abortion by mobilising the flock. But you’re right, they’re weakening.

The difference you describe between man and beast is not one of type, but of scale. Chimps can do anything men can do, just a lot less competently. They’re said by primatologists to be roughly equivalent to a four/five year old human

It may seem self-contradictory, but no more than Christians calling men lowly sinners and made-in-god’s-image in the same breath. We are only our own gods since we control our destiny, but we’re still animals and denying that or the implications of that seems silly.

On free will, I agree that it maybe an illusion, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not me defining my destiny, it would just mean that I didn’t have a choice in defining my destiny.

KS
 
kuroshashu said:
The atheistic satanist denies the existence of the supernatural and uses the term ‘satan’ in the more subtle way, familiar to some theologians, that means man’s animalistic nature. Satanism basically advocates recognition of and reconciliation with the fact that we are just animals working in our own interests as we define them.

KS
Click to expand...
I’ve never understood the adoption of the term “Satan” in this context. It seems to be akin to naming a daycare center “Toddler Abuse, Inc.” and then spending all your time and effort explaining that you’re using the term “abuse” in a more subtle way to indicate that that the children are free to explore in a protected environment. I think you have a branding problem. Or there’s more to the term than you’re willing to admit. 😃
 
Watchman: Ahaha, yes, if you get me started I do have some sympathy with the theistic satanist position, but that’s another issue.

The term is meant to be abrasive. It’s a bit like Douglas Adam’s calling himself a “radical atheist” or Christopher Hitchens’ “anti-theist”: it’s meant to define us as being in direct opposition to the big three monotheisms by borrowing their term meaning ‘opposer’.

So, you’re right, in a way it’s a branding problem: On one hand we have to keep explaining that we’re not theistic satanists, but on the other hand it’s exactly the right word to describe us, so ¯(°_o)/¯
 
kuroshashu said:
Hello all,
Thread title says it all really. I’m an atheistic satanist, as opposed to a theistic satanist and I don’t really go in for the rituals since it’s clear in the satanic bible that they’re only for those who miss the ritual of their old faith and I haven’t got one. Erm, otherwise, ask away. I’m not really sure what you might want to know, so I’ll just leave it at that.

Cheers all
KS
Click to expand...
How long have you been an atheistic satanist? And what were you before this?
 
kuroshashu said:
it’s meant to define us as being in direct opposition to the big three monotheisms by borrowing their term meaning ‘opposer’.
Click to expand...
Then you are being defined by those three monotheisms. It would seem that true separation from them would mean leaving the whole thing behind and moving on with your life. Why orbit monotheism as some contrary satellite? Surely you’re just as caught by its gravity well as the devout believer? I’m reminded of a quote by GK Chesterton:

But that marks their mood about the whole religious tradition they are in a state of reaction against it. It is well with the boy when he lives on his father’s land; and well with him again when he is far enough from it to look back on it and see it as a whole. But these people have got into an intermediate state, have fallen into an intervening valley from which they can see neither the heights beyond them nor the heights behind. They cannot get out of the penumbra of Christian controversy. They cannot be Christians and they can not leave off being Anti-Christians. Their whole atmosphere is the atmosphere of a reaction: sulks, perversity, petty criticism. They still live in the shadow of the faith and have lost the light of the faith.

I pray you find what you seek, if that is truth and love.
 
jakasaki: I’ve been calling myself satanist for a few years now. Before that I called myself an atheist. I probably would’ve answered christian until age seven, but I never really believed. My parents didn’t bother indoctrinating me, thinking that the school would. But when you mix bible stories with stories about cats in hats, it’s not all that effective.

However, I’ve probably always been satanist in that for as long as I remember I’ve believed the basic tenets. It was only a few years ago that I found out someone had written it all down.
 
Watchman: Well, only partially. Yes, satanism is a reaction to theism, but then it’s trying to restore the pre-theistic status quo, so it’s not entirely defined by theism.

With theism, no-one would call themselves ‘satanist’, but everyone would be satanist, if you get me.
 
kuroshashu said:
… it’s trying to restore the pre-theistic status quo, so it’s not entirely defined by theism.
Click to expand...
Where does one find examples of the pre-theistic status quo you’re trying to restore? Is there a particular historical culture you’re basing this on? Or is this based on more recent ideas?
 
Watchman: At least for myself it’s mostly supposed that people would follow their own lights in the absence of dogma. Indeed, I look around and I see that in a lot of people today, both nominally religious and irreligious. Of course, dogma also comes from governments and other sources and that is to be opposed too

But like I say, we live in a world where the satanist is, I think, winning. If you want to see a satanic society, simply go somewhere where people don’t follow holy books or nonsense governmental decrees. Pretty much any major city is fine.
 
kuroshashu said:
Watchman: At least for myself it’s mostly supposed that people would follow their own lights in the absence of dogma. Indeed, I look around and I see that in a lot of people today, both nominally religious and irreligious. Of course, dogma also comes from governments and other sources and that is to be opposed too

But like I say, we live in a world where the satanist is, I think, winning. If you want to see a satanic society, simply go somewhere where people don’t follow holy books or nonsense governmental decrees. Pretty much any major city is fine.
Click to expand...
I am not really sure where to begin here. I think many posts here have shown respect to you, however, I must say that I feel nothing but sorrow for you and those like you. I mean that as a family member feels for the suffering of his brother or sister. Because whether you accept the proclamation that we are indeed brothers, I do and sorrow stems from it. This idea of individualistic hedonism is nothing new or even all that original. Every generation from the time of the beginning of the Church up til or modern age have had those who thought that the religous society was at an end and that man’s ability to rule over his own thoughts and behaviors would take over to form some sort of intellectual utopia. I would ask the French intellectuals during the period of the “enlightenment”, how did that work out for you during the Reign of Terror. Or maybe we should ask the Russians how Stalin treated them once the state did away with all the superstitious nonsense. Maybe we should go further east and look at Mao during the cultural revolution. All of these men following along the basic tenants of which you prescribe. So, for you to say that you think ‘satanic society is winning’, I think is a farse and does not hold up to whatever end it is you think will be created. As God told Moses, “I am, who am”. And sorry my brother, nothing you say or anyone else says will change that.

Blessings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top