PDA

View Full Version : Do you think LaVeyan Satanists can be considered as REAL Satanists?



Goth_Queen
04-19-2009, 07:18 PM
I'm not going to lie here anyone, I absolutely DESPISE LaVeyan "Satanism". I hold the old traditional thought that if you don't believe in Him then you are not a true Satanist. I find the church insulting, they are using the One I hold most dear as nothing but a silly tale and a metaphor.

LaVeyans believe Theistics are delusional and that the only magic that is real are "all within the realms of scientific possibility". One LaVeyan said "Without LaVey coining the term, no one would be using it except for the stereo-typical, biblical devil worshipers".

What are your views and thoughts upon this?

PS: I'm REALLY shocked at all the feedback I got in my first thread i started!! Thank you very much guys!

Frank N. Stein
04-19-2009, 08:49 PM
I don't think there should be any difference if you either view Satan as a person or principle. You know, the same discussion was in the Hindu and Christian religion as well. You should more look at the persons themselves: are they ok? Personally, I belive Satan to be a "person" or "God". But I don't think anyone who equates him with a principle does Him wrong. He is so rich, He can be anything you want. Even female. Like Exu (Eshu), the "Satan" of the Vodounists, http://ilarioba.tripod.com/images/exu.jpg, he can be very attractive and magnetical: The House of Exu Pomba-gira (http://pomba-gira.tripod.com/)

I like Him both ways-He is super sexy as Female and super powerful as a Male and attractive both ways! If you haven't acquired a knowledge about Vodoun already - and about EXU in particular - I urge you to search the internet about Exu [and Eshu] and Pombagira [viz Pomba Gira], that should benefit you, I think. It did me.

In both His/Her incarnations He attracts and, really, cooks your soul, abolishes your conscious brain and gets you to the HOT PART OF YOURSELF immediately. He's irresistible, just blows your mind and gets you in touch with your subconscious. That's the great thing about Satan: He abolishes the little ego-part of your brain and gets you in touch with the big unconscious part of your brain. That's exactly what Saturn is: the Keeper of the Threshold - but HE IS SO KIND: if you really wish, and even if you only wish a little bit or even if you're only curious - He gives you more than you expected.

That's what the Babyolinian scriptures say, too, Enki was the God who conspirated with humankind against the evil slaveowner Enlil/Marduk. He gave humans SOUL and told them how to be god-like. He gave them sun and lust and the probability to GROW - this is echoed in the Angra Mainyu story as well, though told a little differently - in short, Satan gave people the possibility to DIE, but also to transform, be greater than men in contrast to the Spenta Mainyu plan of keeping people as a shepherd, not allowing them to reach across any border, but in return making their lives eternal. This is like in the movie "Zardoz" where the "eternals" live eternally but boring, and Zed releases them by giving them power and passion and the ability to die ;)
Marduk/Enlil wasn't amused a little bit about the dna enhancing Enki did, but it was too late then.

He tried to drown mankind klater but that's just some old story, you know.

So don't quarrel with people who don't share your belief, noble as it may be: Get in touch with what you both share-it may be more than what divides you :)

Any way, this "holy attachment" in chakra philosophy is located in the Anahata and is characterized as attachment to a special form of the deity - and is overcome when you apply Crowley's instructions like stated by Wilson in his genial work COMIC TRIGGER: "Loyola’s method is similar, except that you have no choice about which divinity to invoke. Crowley’s twist is to carry this through until you experience a real manifestation of the God, and then immediately stop, and start over with a different god. After you have run through three or four divinities in this manner, you will understand Nasrudin’s Donkey (the neuro-programmer) and you will be increasingly skeptical about everybody’s reality-maps, including your own. "

No offense meant, in all honesty. This was written in pure love of you, mankind and Our Father Satan.

SORRY FOR monologueing again, but that's just my way ;)

Goth_Queen
04-19-2009, 09:43 PM
Frank N. Stein, you are AWESOME :)

Lokia_Zos
04-20-2009, 12:00 AM
Chopped Liver is awesome too, don't feel bad chopped liver.

VIRAL
04-20-2009, 01:25 AM
Lol lokia zos :D I do believe there is such a thing as "satanic enlightenment" and that it is healthy to be in touch with our darkness, but I do not follow satanism as a religion. Many people, including LaVeyans, use it as an excuse for them already being sociopaths and are not what I would call "enlightened" individuals. There are plenty of exceptions however and it is all on an individual basis. That's like being a catholic and saying all baptists are bad news, or that they're not really christians.

Goth_Queen
04-20-2009, 02:40 AM
Lady Dunsany: Nope, your not my chopped liver, your my bread with butter. is that better?

VIRAL
04-20-2009, 03:16 AM
Can I be your jalapeno preserves?

Goth_Queen
04-20-2009, 06:01 AM
Of course! How can someone not like jalepenos

Balam_del_Monte
04-20-2009, 03:46 PM
jalepenos with nacho cheese!

Frank N. Stein
04-25-2009, 07:40 PM
jalapenos rule - just donj't put them in your ass. I tried that once and it was horrible- just kidding (I hope) :)

Frank N. Stein
04-25-2009, 07:59 PM
Frank N. Stein, you are AWESOME :)
Thank you very much :)

QlippothDisciple
05-29-2009, 05:14 AM
For the topic at hand:

Personally, on the surface I don't find the LaVeyan satanists have any right whatsoever to be called a religion any more than Atheists. Both of them are little more than schools of thought that only give credance to the "power" and "enlightenment" of the individual on a personal level. Technically one could argue that those two schools are one and the same, minus the fact that LaVey's followers liked to put on puppet shows to impress the world with their "individuality". Atheism as a whole seeks to establish reason over faith, forcing the individual to drop loyalties with any variation of higher being than themselves. Modern Satanism, from LaVey's business model dilutes that concept down with it's reference to the darker concept of a universal adversary... Really, LaVey's "religion" is a ripped off and weakened version of lower level Atheistic thought in my opinion.

The man just wanted some attention, and to make money from the most lucrative business model out there, belief. If anything, he was a televangelist with a boner for poorly constructed theatrics.

I hope my words inspire others to post more on this matter, positive or negative. Healthy debate is a rarity in my life, with luck I can experience more of it...

Mirfalan
05-31-2009, 08:38 PM
LaVeyan Satanists are just as real as Spiritual Satanists or Theistic Satanists. Just because they do not view Satan as an actual deity does not mean they are any less Satanic. "Real" should not be confused with "literal".

Plarkenstorf
05-31-2009, 09:59 PM
There could be real and imaginary Satanists, real ones go along the x-axis and imaginary ones go up and down to Heaven or Hell. On an Argand diagram.

Balam_del_Monte
06-01-2009, 03:14 PM
There could be real and imaginary Satanists, real ones go along the x-axis and imaginary ones go up and down to Heaven or Hell. On an Argand diagram.

i agree.
the imaginary satanists could well be the delusional people that give practicing satanists bad names

Great American Desert
06-04-2009, 03:09 PM
I'm inclined to agree with QlippothDisciple on this matter. Throwing aside any argument as to whether or not the LaVeyan philosophy is worthwhile, I can surely say it doesn't warrant the ability to lay claim to 'Satanic'. Even worse is the rampant CoS-cronie stance that theirs is the only true Satanism and everything else is spiritual pipe dreams. The fact is, LaVeyan Satanism is a very elementary way of thinking, and in all its supposed support, and even demand for individuality, it is equally rigid and has become an orthodoxy of its own.

Even though I do not think it's a truly Satanic path (is it even able to call itself a path?), I would not say "You are not a Satanist". My opinion holds no bearing, and if somebody says they are a Satanist, I will take it at that, no matter what I think of their true beliefs. The Abrahamics don't have to do much to harm the Occult world - they just let the infighting take care of it. It would be beneficial if there were just a bit less elitism; but then perhaps we'd be defying our own nature as individuals.

Ravana
06-05-2009, 09:47 AM
I am not a fan of Lavey, nor do I agree with Leveyan Satanists that we are
reverse Christians as we all know the Devil has been around in all Cultures long before Satan turned up in the New testament, however his philosophy
or should I say borrowed philosophy is a good introduction to any new Satanist.
It was the Satanic bible that introduced me to Satanism and I have made so
much of it part of my own philosophy so I try not to be too biased against the
Laveyan but in my mind how can they be a true Satanist without Satan as their god. (my opinion only)

Mirfalan
06-05-2009, 05:14 PM
While I do for the most part agree with QlippothDisciple, Great American Desert, and Ravana, the fact of the matter is that LaVeyan Satanists are real satanists because the movement is called LaVeyan Satanism. In such a light, this entire topic is unnecessary as the question is already answered by asking the question. Perhaps, a better question would be this: Should LaVeyan Satanism be called something else? For this I would mostly say "yes", except for the fact that LaVey does use Satan as an archetype, a metaphor. I was once at a party, and some people asked me, "Well, why call it LaVeyan Satanism?" I was going to explain, but my girlfriend and I were on the way out, plus the three people were incredibly drunk. I was going to say that it is called Satanism because it stands as an adversary to all religions, the Abrahamic ones in particular. Yes, he stole all his work. Yes, he does not believe in Satan the actual deity. These are also reasons why LaVeyan Satanism should be called something else. But, really, Satan is not an actual deity. He is just a demonized form of several pagan deities, that also never existed, used to represent evil. So, the logic many of you are using to answer this question "no" would also declare that all Satanists, even the theistic ones, are not real Satanists because Satan is not real.

Great American Desert
06-05-2009, 06:51 PM
But, really, Satan is not an actual deity. He is just a demonized form of several pagan deities, that also never existed, used to represent evil.
Here's where you veer away from the facts in favor of the unprovable opinion. You can't prove a negative. I know that's often used as a copout argument, but to people who have experienced a deity called Satan, whether that be just another name for something older, and nameless, that truly does exist, or if it be the Devil as we know him, Satan is a real deity. And Satan does exist. To use the 'doesn't exist' bit in this particular argument, you stray from the real question at hand. LaVeyianity is Satanism because it calls itself such. But it should not call itself such, as its core philosophy is not Satanic, and it only uses the trappings for effect. It's not properly the polar opposition to the Abrahamic faiths because it still works within the Abrahamic paradigm. Were it to be truly opposed to the forces of Abraham's flock, it would wholly shun the paradigm and not play into it by using Satan as its symbol.

This is my opinion, anyhow.

Mirfalan
06-05-2009, 07:09 PM
Here's where you veer away from the facts in favor of the unprovable opinion. You can't prove a negative.

It is my opinion that there are facts that discredit the existence of deities, but that really is to the argument at hand, so we may simply address that another time. I just felt it relevant to this discussion.


Were it to be truly opposed to the forces of Abraham's flock, it would wholly shun the paradigm and not play into it by using Satan as its symbol.

This does make sense. I am inclined to agree with you here. LaVeyan Satanism should be called something else, but it is not.

This question does really illustrate how futile and inadequate words can be.

Ravana
06-08-2009, 02:52 PM
Hey Mirfalan I understand where you are coming from about facts and discrediting the existence of Deities. I remember reading one of your posts about will magic and how you want to work with it on its own, good for you because you are on a powerful path as you probably already know. Have you ever read any books by William Walker Atkinson.
I use that type of magic because I will not be held back by times and Moon phases when I need something done now.
But as far as Deities go well Satan to me is very real to me not because I wish him to be, but that he has proven to be. I have spent many years calling on Satan and have watched myself transform outwardly I am a nice person you would not guess on meeting me that my nature was Satanic, people trust me I show ethics and empathy to all I come across and mean it sincerely to some (Anton) those who deserve it, but to those who are in the way of my ambitions or they are rude I will and have removed from my environment I am a wolf in sheeps clothing, I say this not to sound all powerful I admit willingly I have only practiced the dark side of the occult myself for 5 years 3 of which was reading only I am hardly adept.
Cut to the chase I cant ask Allah or Jesus to fxxk someone over so that I can be better off I chose my Gods because I can approach them with my requests, without being questioned about ethics, or be asked if that is the right thing to do, I know that it is in their nature and I know they will carry it out.

ninfan
07-06-2009, 06:31 PM
I like some of the principles of COS but I don't call myself a satanist since the term 'satanist' has become quite amigious since the COS was established & I don't worship satan(at least, not yet). Theres a worlds differene between athiestic & theistic satanism & it sounds more logical & makes more sense when you use the word 'satanist' for someone who worships satan rather than someone who is the 'COS type of satanist'.
How nice it would be if they were called by different names. So much time would be saved & so many arguements & discussions could have been avoided.

Diabolos11
07-26-2009, 07:41 PM
To be honest I think it hardly matters. They aren't going to stop calling themselves Satanists because we "pseudo's" :rolleyes: wish them too.

Sure I take issue with their view on theism and their thoughts on those of use who are theistic. Though I can appreciate their attitude when you encounter the lack of intelligence and downright wooly thinking of some who call themselves "Satanists". Quite often these people shout the loudest..empty vessels and all that and seem to be a majority.

But for me I don't care what people think of Satanism, I have no interest in the opinion of the masses nor that of most Satanists, especially LaVeyan.

So it really isn't an issue anymore, might of been once. But for me the major concern is about me and what I do. Concerning myself with "are LaVeyans real Satanists or not?" seems like a waste of energy.

BadGirl
07-29-2009, 05:04 PM
I think Satanism has came a long way since the days of Anton LaVey, and that his establishment of the Satanic Church in 1966 was an extremely Satanic Act in that current time (albeit, he instituted it in San Francisco)

and I think, further, it's just how you decide to look at it.


I mean, sure... he does ruffle the feathers of the more Anti-Cosmic/Traditional/Spiritual personalities, but he also opened the doors for many of them, too. (i.e. Aquino, for an example)

Diabolos11
08-02-2009, 06:37 PM
I think Satanism has came a long way since the days of Anton LaVey, and that his establishment of the Satanic Church in 1966 was an extremely Satanic Act in that current time (albeit, he instituted it in San Francisco)



It some areas it has come a long way and some individuals and groups have added something of value too Satanism and its development. Sadly there is so much that hasn't and is quite honestly a joke. Satanism as it stands today needs "refining".

Ravana
08-03-2009, 01:48 AM
For sure Satanism needs refining and to do us all some good it would be better if it was all in one box. But what do you do when you like the teachings of lets say TOTBL and you also like an author like E A Koetting who is an ex-Satanist, who has written some very dark works, their philosophies do not match, one is selfish and builds its own kingdom. The other wishes to destroy all creation because it is the work of the demiurge. Now what do you do, do you follow a practice that is all about you where you can prosper in every way, if you put enough of yourself into it. Or do you spend your life fighting against the demiurge hating him and his people.
Both are noble ways but you could never get both of these systems to agree
E A Koetting says he walks the middle path, TOTBL the left hand path.
So what do we do we borrow a bit from each and have our own path and then come as a lone wolf and howl together at places like this.
There is so much to borrow from out there, and we have no home lets hope that soon there will be a new black order, or Liber Azerate explains everything. 11/11/09

Diabolos11
08-03-2009, 07:26 PM
For sure Satanism needs refining and to do us all some good it would be better if it was all in one box. But what do you do when you like the teachings of lets say TOTBL and you also like an author like E A Koetting who is an ex-Satanist, who has written some very dark works, their philosophies do not match, one is selfish and builds its own kingdom. The other wishes to destroy all creation because it is the work of the demiurge. Now what do you do, do you follow a practice that is all about you where you can prosper in every way, if you put enough of yourself into it. Or do you spend your life fighting against the demiurge hating him and his people.
Both are noble ways but you could never get both of these systems to agree
E A Koetting says he walks the middle path, TOTBL the left hand path.
So what do we do we borrow a bit from each and have our own path and then come as a lone wolf and howl together at places like this.
There is so much to borrow from out there, and we have no home lets hope that soon there will be a new black order, or Liber Azerate explains everything. 11/11/09

I would say the TotBL are one of the few that have added something of value to Satanism. I don't agree with their beliefs, but were as much Satanism about today is akin to what wicca is to witchcraft, they at least present a Satanism with teeth and claws. The refining that is required is amongst those that have rendered Satan toothless and clawless, that call themselves LHP but shout about Satanic "ethics" and are concerned with what others think of them!? (I'll add I've never read any of Koetting's work. so can't comment)

Taking the the best of what is out there and adapting it to suite would be the best approach, The path to tread is the one you create yourself..isn't it?

Diabolos11
08-04-2009, 07:37 PM
I thought LaVey were the joke:) They are not satanists they are simply confused atheists.

You can't really call them "confused athiests", because they aren't confused about being athiests and why they call themselves Satanists is clearly outlined in the SB. The argument really is can you call yourself a Satanist but not believe in Satan?

A belief in Satan or any deity does throw up a whole host of questions. Where do they come from?, where do they reside?, why do they exist? How did they come into existence? How long have they existed? What interest do they have in us and why? etc etc . I doubt there are any satisfactory answers?

(maybe I'm just questioning my own beliefs!?).

If there is no actual "Satan" then who can and cannot call themselves a Satanist falls in favour of the LaVeyans. The burden of evidence falls on the theist, doesn't it?

But anyone with a strong enough belief is alway's going to argue they are right whether athiest or theist, therefore rendering it all a bit pointless! Head against a brickwall and all that!

Plarkenstorf
08-04-2009, 07:49 PM
Diabolo - definition of Diabolo by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Diabolo)

Are you one of these? Or are you making a some sort of other message by using Diabolos11 as your screen name?

Would imagine it doesn't matter that much.

The only reason to apply a label is practicality. There are practical reasons why LaVeyan Satanists identify themselves as Satanists.

Also, you don't need to question your own beliefs if you don't, ironically, already believe belief itself requires justification.

AharaVimaladvaita
08-04-2009, 08:06 PM
I think that dealing with quaestion like: Where do they come from?, where do they reside?, why do they exist? How did they come into existence? How long have they existed? What interest do they have in us and why? is just to much and no need to.

If working with them hellps you then they exist and you don't need an answers on your quaestions (for some they are just simbols and for some they realy exist in "Third World").

Plarkenstorf
08-04-2009, 08:21 PM
I think that dealing with quaestion like: Where do they come from?, where do they reside?, why do they exist? How did they come into existence? How long have they existed? What interest do they have in us and why? is just to much and no need to.

Are you speaking about Aliens or Satanists?

Will assume Satanists.


Where do they come from?

All over the world.


where do they reside?

All over the world.


why do they exist?

Biochemically - parents had sex.
Philosophically - no one can decide that, their bet, however, is the best.


How long have they existed?

Answer would depend on what you count Satanism as. If you mean LaVeyan Satanism - as soon as Mr Lavey himself had the idea and believed in it, by my reckoning.

Belief in a Satan concept? Horned spirit archetypes are pretty damn ancient.


What interest do they have in us and why?

Varies from person to person, and could probably be revealed by just talking to them. Satanists are people after all.

It may be 'too much' to want to find these things out, but doing so requires very little thought. And you can get more friends by doing it! Huzzah!


If working with them hellps you then they exist and you don't need an answers on your quaestions (for some they are just simbols and for some they realy exist in "Third World").

Existence isn't a property outside of opinion? What do you mean by "Third World"? I hope you don't mean Africa and that? Satanists aren't necessarily Ethiopian, btw, though I'd bet at least one person in Ethiopia was a Satanist.

AharaVimaladvaita
08-05-2009, 05:20 AM
No it wasn't me who asked those quaestions... it was Diabolos11 in one of the previous posts :). For me god is everywhere.

Afrika??? What??? And what aliens??? :D... When i'm talking about the "Tird World" i'mn thinking on other spiritual world :).

Diabolos11
08-05-2009, 09:38 AM
I think that dealing with quaestion like: Where do they come from?, where do they reside?, why do they exist? How did they come into existence? How long have they existed? What interest do they have in us and why? is just to much and no need to.

If working with them hellps you then they exist and you don't need an answers on your quaestions (for some they are just simbols and for some they realy exist in "Third World").

If we don't ask questions then aren't we guilty of blind faith and self delusion?

Surely Satanism challenges such thinking and humanities tendencies to self delusion? Though the evidence is that this isn't alway's the case! Hence LaVeyan Satanist's mockery of all other "branches" of Satanism. And let's face it when you look around at some 'satanic' groups out there, we can clearly see some serious delusional wooly thinking in evidence.

Plarkenstorf
08-05-2009, 04:34 PM
What kind of swamp thing are you?

Diabolos11
08-05-2009, 04:40 PM
so you want beautiful rag.

how many have been raped how many priests raped boys, how many went to jail, how many died in the name of progress for the illuminatis dream to listen to beautiful rag because the vatican chose to have satan as the leader of satanics but the illuminati chose instead to control mid evil days in exchange for satan not being a leader. illuminati are plain right out evil as sin itself a deasese of mankind probabbly controled by the vatican making puppetry of mankind.

you here want law on the dark side pertaing to one box. sacrificing humans with vatican approval from the stretches of darkness.

mankind deserves to go to hell

remember this if you manipulate anything even demon music LIKE WHAT YOU CREATE WEATHER IT BE RAG OR NOT

Translation please!?:rolleyes:

AharaVimaladvaita
08-05-2009, 05:07 PM
so you want beautiful rag.

how many have been raped how many priests raped boys, how many went to jail, how many died in the name of progress for the illuminatis dream to listen to beautiful rag because the vatican chose to have satan as the leader of satanics but the illuminati chose instead to control mid evil days in exchange for satan not being a leader. illuminati are plain right out evil as sin itself a deasese of mankind probabbly controled by the vatican making puppetry of mankind.

you here want law on the dark side pertaing to one box. sacrificing humans with vatican approval from the stretches of darkness.

mankind deserves to go to hell

remember this if you manipulate anything even demon music LIKE WHAT YOU CREATE WEATHER IT BE RAG OR NOT

Are you ok???

Plarkenstorf
08-06-2009, 07:15 AM
Every topic turns into this.

"The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the assumed conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence." - Wiki.

"Assumed conclusion" - if a theist and an atheist are arguing, and they both are attempting to prove their conclusion (theism is true, atheism is true) therefore both have burden of proof.

Unless a specific claim is invoked, like "God makes the sun go down." Then the burden of evidence falls on the claimant. If someone's claim is unfalsifiable there's little point in discussing it.

Plarkenstorf
08-06-2009, 08:00 AM
This does not apply to a definition. The definition is usually defined by the creator of the definition in this case the Vatican and according to that Laveyan philosophy can not be called satanism. Cambridge advanced learners edition defines satanism simply as the worship of Satan. What LaVey and others claim is if no importance as long as that is the general definition of the word.


The burden of evidence does not fall with the theists.

I was responding to that part of your post. It can fall with theists, it probably does not in this case.

If LaVeyan Satanism isn't theistic in the first place of course the burden of proof in this regard isn't going to be relevant. Unless the LaVeyan had other beliefs they were claiming about. Satan doesn't make the sun go down to a LaVeyan, is what I'm saying.

Diabolos11
08-06-2009, 11:59 AM
The burden of evidence does not fall with the theists. Satanism was defined long before LaVey was even born. The burden of evidence is always in the hand of those that want to change an already existing definition.

That argument doesn't make sense. The original definition makes a claim that can't be proven and for which there are logical arguments against. Clearly someone who makes such claims of theism can't make them without being challenged for the proof, of which, objectivly there isn't any!

I can't tell you there is a one eyed, pink unicorn at the bottom of the garden then expect you to prove me wrong!

Plarkenstorf
08-06-2009, 04:41 PM
Crossed wires - Mr K is statings points about the semantics of the way LaVeyan Satanism is defined, Satan is treated like an archetype and a symbol of the philosophies believed in by LaVeyans.

This however does not necessarily exclude a LaVeyan belief in some other divinity, or they perhaps could ascribe to LaVayen Satanism and ritually worship their Satanic archetype.

Diabolos11 is stating points about the required falsifiability of divine claims. LaVeyan Satanism (for the most part) does not make claims about the existence of any occult or supernatural phenomena.

You guys aren't actually debating or really explaining anything, just stating concordant beliefs.

Diabolos11
08-06-2009, 07:45 PM
It makes perfect sense and so think the dictionaries:) Everything is defined real or not does not matter. What a vampire is, is well defined and I do not believe in them at all. What a unicorn should look like is also defined even if it does not exist. The definition has nothing to do with reality but with perception.

Also you telling me you have an one eyed, pink unicorn at the bottom of the garden is not a definition that is a claim or a statement. Totally different.

The simple truth is that LaVeyans are not Satanists according to the definition or meaning of the word satanist. Same as you can not call your self a Vampire and not fit the definition of a Vampire or say that your horse is a unicorn since it simply would not fit the definition of a unicorn.

Is this really that hard to understand?

You write "the definition has nothing to do with reality but perception". So yes the dictionary definition tells us Satanism is the worship of Satan, this as you write is simply "perception" not reality. The dictionary definition doesn't provide proof of Satan's existence, but simlply asserts a percieved reality.

Whether Satan exists or not is pretty much the cornerstone to the whole argument so it does matter!

Diabolos11
08-06-2009, 07:58 PM
Diabolos11 is stating points about the required falsifiability of divine claims. LaVeyan Satanism (for the most part) does not make claims about the existence of any occult or supernatural phenomena.

.

LaVeyan Satanism quite clearly comments on such things, LaVey ridicules the occult in the SB and on the CoS website "On occultism from the past" and the article "Pretenders to the throne" makes quite clear their views on theism. They do not believe in any external deity.

Plarkenstorf
08-06-2009, 08:00 PM
LaVeyan Satanism doesn't actually require Satan to exist. It doesn't make any divine claims. Satan, as already stated, is used as a symbol for their beliefs - rather than as a deity.

Edit: Then where's the point of contention? Burden of proof for theistic claims is not relevant when we're not dealing with any theistic claims.

Diabolos11
08-06-2009, 08:09 PM
LaVeyan Satanism doesn't actually require Satan to exist. It doesn't make any divine claims. Satan, as already stated, is used as a symbol for their beliefs - rather than as a deity.

Edit: Then where's the point of contention? Burden of proof for theistic claims is not relevant when we're not dealing with any theistic claims.

The argument is that if you don't believe in Satan then you aren't a real Satanist, this is what my points are about. If Satan doesn't exist then this argument isn't valid is it?

Plarkenstorf
08-06-2009, 08:28 PM
Well no, something doesn't need to exist to believe in it. Burden of proof is not relevant, either, here, as already stated.

If you define a real Satanist as a Satanist who makes theistic claims involving Satan, then the vast majority of LaVeyans are not real Satanists.

Plarkenstorf
08-06-2009, 09:31 PM
The only distinction is what constitutes believing in Satan, if believing in Satan as a theistic entity is required to be a Satanist, then Laveyans are not Satanists.

However, if belief in what notions Satan represents is qualification for believing in Satan, then Laveyans are indeed Satanists.

Isn't it a matter of practicality? Would it be too much to go out on a limb as defining the majority of Satanists (Laveyans) as not Satanists is pretty counter intuitive?

Plarkenstorf
08-06-2009, 09:57 PM
It's certainly true that LaVey lied if he said he created Satanism, (ideas go back to the Torah or before).

The lies, however, seem irrelevant as to whether it is 'real' Satanism or not 'real' Satanism. Catholicism's still catholicism even if the Pope's a liar.

As stated before, if Satanism is defined as "belief in a theistic entity labelled Satan." Then the majority of LaVeyans will not be Satanists. This definition, however defines the majority of people who the word "satanist" applies to as not actually satanists.

Words are defined through practicality, for example large spoons and small spoons are still spoons. Theistic Satanists and Atheistic Satanists are still Satanists.

And most likely spoons, too.

It would be impractical to have the label misapplied so readily for such a small difference in word meaning. This entire debate could be resolved by calling theistic and atheistic Satanists - people who identify as such - as Satanists.

Diabolos11
08-06-2009, 10:10 PM
Well no, something doesn't need to exist to believe in it. Burden of proof is not relevant, either, here, as already stated.

If you define a real Satanist as a Satanist who makes theistic claims involving Satan, then the vast majority of LaVeyans are not real Satanists.

On the basis of that argument I may as well believe anything, whether true or not. It's existance is irrilevant! No wonder Laveyans mock theistics!

Plarkenstorf
08-06-2009, 10:19 PM
On the basis of that argument I may as well believe anything, whether true or not. It's existance is irrilevant! No wonder Laveyans mock theistics!

If there are a billion oranges in a bag, then there are oranges in a bag. Given the premise, the latter follows naturally. There doesn't need to be one billion oranges in a bag in the real world for conclusion to be true.

And you can believe something whether it's true or not. The belief is the thing that matters here, as belief in Satan is what will decide whether someone is a Satanist or not. Not the actuality of Satan's existence.

The oranges would be in the bag, irrelevant of whether there are oranges or bags and whether the twain have met.

Plarkenstorf
08-06-2009, 10:33 PM
You assert the claim that only theistic Satanists can be called Satanists?

That's quite alright. It's very counter intuitive though. People who believe in the philosophies presented by Strauss are Straussian... There're Freudians, Hegelians etc. You go from a noun form to an adjective form.

People who believe in something represented by Satan (to them) adhere to Satanism - therefore are Satanists?

Plarkenstorf
08-06-2009, 11:07 PM
Which definition?


Worship of Satan, or the devil, the personality or principle regarded by the Judeo-Christian tradition as embodying absolute evil in complete antithesis to God. This worship may be regarded as a gesture of extreme protest against Judeo-Christian spiritual hegemony. Satanic cults have been documented in Europe and America as far back as the 17th century, but their earlier roots are difficult to trace, just as the number of real satanists in any period is frequently overestimated. Churchmen have readily attributed satanism to “witches,” and to such heretics as Gnostics, Cathars, and Bogomils, but that charge does not correspond with the heretics’ own understanding of their beliefs, and the alleged satanism of those persecuted in the heyday of witch-burning may rest on no better foundation than the overheated imagination of witch-finders and confessions obtained by torture. By the same token, devil worship ascribed to non-Christian religions is usually based on polemic or misunderstanding. Modern witchcraft and neopaganism are not to be confused with satanism, since these groups worship not Satan but pre-Christian gods. Satanism, as devotion to the Judeo-Christian source of evil, can only exist in symbiosis with that tradition, for it shares but inverts its worldview.
satanism (occult practice) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/524840/satanism)


Worship of Satan, or the devil, the personality or principle regarded by the Judeo-Christian tradition as embodying absolute evil in complete antithesis to God.

"Worship of the principle regarded in antithesis to God" - seems to fit devotion to pleasure seeking and unashamed egoism. Which are major tenants of LaVeyan philosophy.

Plarkenstorf
08-08-2009, 12:35 AM
Satan could be used as a bundle of concepts, such as LaVeyans use it, rather than an actual entity.

We've been through this.

Diabolos11
08-09-2009, 01:07 PM
let's just take this from the top.

The argument is: LaVeyan's do not believe in a *Real* Satan therefore they are not *Satanists*.

A *real* Satanist believes in a *real* Satan. So the whole deabte isn't about dictionary definitions or the history of something, neither of which prove anything, but what is *real*.

To argue that the dictionary defines Satanism, that history defines Satanism is nonsense, to argue that belief is irrilevant is nonsense.

To ignore the issue of belief is to subscribe to delusional, uncritical thinking.

If a *Real* Satanist believes in a *Real* Satan, but Satan *really* doesn't exist then their whole argument has no foundation! It is completly flawed.

*If* Satan doesn't exist you can't tell a LaVeyan they aren't really a Satanist, regardless of History or Dictionary defintion.

Their only difference would be *belief*, Which to be fair can't be proven either way. So at the end of the day this "i'm real your not real" coming form both theistic and athiestic camps is simply puerile name calling!

I would argue though that any belief should at least have some basis in experience, however subjective that is and that such beleif should be constantly challenged. This works both ways, an athiest should challenge their own beliefs.

Diabolos11
08-09-2009, 03:33 PM
According to definition they are not. It would be like calling a soccer fan a player. You actually have to play soccer to be a soccer player not just have opinions on it. Neither could you be called a soccer player if you kicked a hockey puck.

But the difference between a soccer player and a fan is an objective provable matter. The difference between a theistic and an athiestic Satanist is not an objective provable matter!

So once again definition is no argument. And who created this definition of a Satanist? I bet it was no Satanist?

Diabolos11
08-09-2009, 03:38 PM
If there are a billion oranges in a bag, then there are oranges in a bag. Given the premise, the latter follows naturally. There doesn't need to be one billion oranges in a bag in the real world for conclusion to be true.

And you can believe something whether it's true or not. The belief is the thing that matters here, as belief in Satan is what will decide whether someone is a Satanist or not. Not the actuality of Satan's existence.

The oranges would be in the bag, irrelevant of whether there are oranges or bags and whether the twain have met.

Another argument stating something objectively quantifiable, however long it took to count the oranges in the bag, or whether or not I even bothered, I would still be able to see there are oranges in the bag. A belief in Satan proves proves nothing either way!

Plarkenstorf
08-09-2009, 10:25 PM
Another argument stating something objectively quantifiable, however long it took to count the oranges in the bag, or whether or not I even bothered, I would still be able to see there are oranges in the bag. A belief in Satan proves proves nothing either way!

If something isn't objectively quantifiable, as you say, then the only means of interacting with it is entirely belief based?

"Hey, I don't know whether you exist and what your views are, but I believe you don't like pudding because pudding is sin. Hey guys, pudding is sin."

They can't be Pudding Rejectionists because the God of Pudding rejection might not exist! Apparently!

Plarkenstorf
08-09-2009, 10:36 PM
Another argument stating something objectively quantifiable, however long it took to count the oranges in the bag, or whether or not I even bothered, I would still be able to see there are oranges in the bag. A belief in Satan proves proves nothing either way!

I'm not a Catholic because God exists.

I'm a Catholic because I believe he does.

Diabolos11
08-10-2009, 06:18 AM
Seems like many people have problems understanding the difference.

I understand the difference. If you guy's want to think simply stating a belief makes it real then I'm happy for you. You've just simply shown you can't come up with any reasonable arguments for the issue at hand.

Alas this debate is turning into a case of swings and roundabouts. I've no further points to make.

Diabolos11
08-10-2009, 06:30 AM
Ehh wrong. It is very much a provable objective matter. The theist believe in Satan the atheist does not. I have already explained where the definition comes from so if you just can read and are able of understanding what you read it should not be so hard to find.

Go on then prove to me Satan exists in an objective manner. I've read all you have written and have understood that you simply can't, I'll write it again Can't objectivly prove the existence of Satan based on a dictionary defintion that tells you a Satanist worships Satan. It simply states what a Satanist, whom the dictioanry writer has never met, never spoken to etc believes or so they believe!?

All you've objectivly proven is that a Satanist is supposed to believe in a literal Satan, not whether or not that belief is true or false or whether or not a LaVeyan can claim to be a Satanist!

Anyway I'll refer you back to my post above. Swings and roundabouts!

Diabolos11
08-10-2009, 06:32 AM
If something isn't objectively quantifiable, as you say, then the only means of interacting with it is entirely belief based?

"Hey, I don't know whether you exist and what your views are, but I believe you don't like pudding because pudding is sin. Hey guys, pudding is sin."

They can't be Pudding Rejectionists because the God of Pudding rejection might not exist! Apparently!

Thats just nonsense!

Diabolos11
08-11-2009, 07:03 AM
No one has claimed that this makes the belief real or not. It is simply not the question on weather a faith is real or not that defines if you are a part of it or not. It is the actual believing that makes you a part of that faith. This is the basis of all faiths and really not a difficult subject to grasp really.

I grasped the subject. You simply haven't. The point is about who can claim to be a real Satanist. A flimsy argument like I have faith,( which shouldn't be part of Satanism in my opinion, but whatever), so I'm the real Satanist is no argument. The point which I have been making which has been ignored is: IF SATAN DOESN'T EXIST THEN THE THE ARGUMENT HAS NO FOUNDATION! I can't argue I'm a real Satanist based on a belief in a fantasy!

My conclusion, which was ignored is that as the argument can't be decided either way, then it's a pointless argument. Satanism doesn't have a "Bible" allegedly written by God as it's foundation which you are expected to believe in as part of your "Faith", the definition of a Satanist wasn't decided by a Satanist. And at the end of the day, aside from flimsy arguments there is nothing that stops a Satanist being athiestic or theistic.

The animosity from either camps towards each other is pointless!

At the end of the day the Satanic thing to do in my opinion, is constantly question and challenge belief whether it is theistic or atheistic, anything else is to subscribe to delusional wooly thinking....like "Faith".

Whore_of_the_black_abyss
08-12-2009, 06:54 AM
I agree with the original post that I am not a fan of Laveyan Satanists. I don't believe that they are even deserving of the title 'Satanist'. They are merely atheists who seem to enjoy the theatrics of inverted pentagrams, hooded cloaks and altars. Their entire religion is a joke. Their religion is merely a weak excuse to be as self-pleasing, self-centered and selfish as possible, without any actual want for enlightenment or occultic wisdom.
It is a weak religion for weak-minded individuals who consider themselves stronger than Christians, but who truly aren't any better at all.
Selfishness and excessive hedonistic tendencies does NOT bring about enlightenment, although I doubt that Laveyans care nor have any want to receive intelligence or enlightenment anyway.

I despise them.

Diabolos11
08-12-2009, 03:07 PM
Well your argument is wrong which we have proven over and over again.The only people that can claim to be a satanist is the believers. You are totally free to call your self a modern satanist if you want though since that term has another definition. What stops a satanist from being an atheist is the same thing that stops a christian from being an atheist. Really how is this even issue that needs to explained most 10 year old's would grasp this without any problems what so ever.

I'm not a modern satanist, never said I was. You keep on going on about me missing the point and now insults, but clearly you have missed the point through out. It isn't me who can't grasp the argument but yourself sheesh, pot calling the kettle and all that!!

Diabolos11
08-12-2009, 03:20 PM
I agree with the original post that I am not a fan of Laveyan Satanists. I don't believe that they are even deserving of the title 'Satanist'. They are merely atheists who seem to enjoy the theatrics of inverted pentagrams, hooded cloaks and altars. Their entire religion is a joke. Their religion is merely a weak excuse to be as self-pleasing, self-centered and selfish as possible, without any actual want for enlightenment or occultic wisdom.
It is a weak religion for weak-minded individuals who consider themselves stronger than Christians, but who truly aren't any better at all.
Selfishness and excessive hedonistic tendencies does NOT bring about enlightenment, although I doubt that Laveyans care nor have any want to receive intelligence or enlightenment anyway.

I despise them.

On some level I agree, but the point I've tried to make throughout is *If* Satan doesn't exist then the whole argument is pointless, which was the original point made in post#1 that a real Satanist believes in a real Satan, if a real satan doesn't exist then no amount of belief makes the supposed "Real" satanist anymore genuine then a "Satanist" who simply acts how they believe Satan would regarding purely material matters.

But this behaving as "Satan" is in fact more dennis wheatley imo then based on mythology, unless we conclude that Satan is "God of this world" and therefore purely about all that is carnal/material. Personally I'm more interested in transcendence (though of course I have a big interest in the carnal) which mythologically we can see in the Serpent in the Garden and in the Book of Enoch as the passing on of forbiddon knowledge etc. So I would agree hedonism doesn't bring about enlightenment/transcendence.

Diabolos11
08-12-2009, 07:37 PM
So you are saying that the only way to be a real christian, Muslim and so on is to not have faith since none of it can be proven? Do you even realize how stupid that argument is?

As I have already stated *sigh* the abrahamic religions have texts that are apparently the word of god, they have prophets etc etc theose religions are founded on faith and quite frankly fantasy. Satanism isn't Comparing those religions with Satanism doesn't make sense (and since when was the topic Christianity/Islam?). Satanism has no such ancient inspired texts (if anyone say's the al jilwah I will laugh in your face), no prophets. It has nothing written by Satanists about Satanism to create a definiton from until LaVey. Any definition was created based on what "Satanists" were believed to do. On that basis Satanists should be sacrifing babies etc because that is traditionally what Satanists were believed to do!

And as you state none of it can be proven, so how can you argue a LaVeyan can't be called a Satanist simply because they don't have faith in something that may or may not exist? As i've stated previously a Satanist should challenge any belief athiestic or theistic, so in my view "Faith" does not a Satanist make!

Anyway this debate is going nowhere so unless someone comes up with anything other then "Faith" :rolleyes: and dictionary definitons then I decline to comment further.

Diabolos11
08-12-2009, 11:09 PM
Wrong again a Satanists text is called the bible same sources as Christianity. What you present is your own opinion that has no bearing. What I present is an established definition of what Satanism is. You are contradicting your self. If you accept that Christians and so on can not be atheists then by default you agree to the same thing regarding Satanists.

What utter nonsense!

Whore_of_the_black_abyss
08-21-2009, 12:36 PM
No, Laveyan Satanists are not true Satanists, nor should they have the honour of using Satan's name. In my opinion, they are false, weak and selfish atheists who simply like the idea of appearing dark, 'evil' or anti-Christian. Their 'religion' is merely a weak excuse to be self-serving and hedonistic.
They polute and defile the name of Satan as well as any other Left Hand Paths.

DEATH TO THE FALSE!

Plarkenstorf
08-21-2009, 01:26 PM
Please read the thread, before other posts are made, all the arguments have been made numerous times. In fact, all the arguments relevant to the topic at hand were made in the first page, and that was a huge amount of time ago.

Diabolos11
08-22-2009, 07:08 AM
I understand that you do not have anything else to say:) Thought you said you wouldn't comment further at all. People usually say that when they know they are wrong.

I had nothing further to say because all that could be said has been said over and over again, not because I think I'm wrong....my what delusional thinking!:rolleyes: