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

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

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.

Satan could be used as a bundle of concepts, such as LaVeyans use it, rather than an actual entity.

We've been through this.

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.

Originally Posted by MrK

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?

Originally Posted by Plarkenstorf

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!

Originally Posted by Diabolos11

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!

Originally Posted by Diabolos11

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.

Originally Posted by MrK

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.

Originally Posted by MrK

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!

Originally Posted by Plarkenstorf

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!