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...
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".
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'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.
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)
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.
Last edited by Mirfalan; 06-05-2009 at 05:16 PM. Reason: changes
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.
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.Originally Posted by Great American Desert
This does make sense. I am inclined to agree with you here. LaVeyan Satanism should be called something else, but it is not.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 question does really illustrate how futile and inadequate words can be.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks