Thread: Do you think LaVeyan Satanists can be considered as REAL Satanists?

Originally Posted by MrK

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!

Originally Posted by Plarkenstorf

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Plarkenstorf

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?

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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Plarkenstorf

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!

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.

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?