(Before I post this, I would like to let it be known that although certain parts of this post can seem derogatory, sarcastic, and generally insulting, the entire thing is meant with a neutral tone, not poking at anyone in particular, but more at certain modes of disastrous thinking. I'm really, really not trying to insult anyone. Promise.)
I, too, would consider myself a LaVeyan Satanist, particularly as I find myself at odds with the various theistic churches and their use of their influence to spread messages of servitude and ignorance. If you mislead people about proper modes of analysis, you cross me.
Keep in mind, Satanism does not actually worship or even recognize a literal being called "satan". We are realists and pragmatists, rationalists and scientists, and most of all, connoisseurs.
To those who would say, "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual", I would suggest that what you mean to say is, "I'm not religious, I'm profound.". Regardless of whether or not this is actually true (not a snide insult, btw), you AIM to be profound, so there's no reason not to call it what it is.
Plus, you can totally be profound without having anything to do with religion. Take up poetry, express yourself with literary syllogism, paint your feelings with either a paintbrush or words, do what makes you feel connected with your higher creative forces. Just don't let yourself get sucked into an unscientific and irrational worldview simply because you value your profundity more than your intellect, or have been told by the people around you that that's just the way things are.
Here are a couple of websites I would recommend, if you haven't fled back to your holy book already.
www.lesswrong.com
www.rationalwiki.org
www.churchofsatan.com (For those who want to understand more about where I'm coming from and what Satanism really entails. Think atheism, but with ritual, antitheism, and a bit of parody.)
Edit: (Decided to post a lot more information after thinking about this for a while.)
I is Buddhist because I like to follow religions but can't be bothered getting into arguments about creationism, god, evolution etc. And Buddhism has never been forced on anyone, unlike many other religions.
Hmmmmmmmm, no.
Well...
My mother's Adventist and my father's a Roman Catholic... My sister's baptized as an Adventist, but I am not currently baptized to any religion...
This therefore, makes me... terribly, terribly confused.
An excellent point you have there, Shinigami. The truth is, there's a LOT of confusion when it comes to religion. In particular, the confusion between belief and philosophy. You could say this is sort of what religion is, in fact; a merging of belief and philosophy. (As in, the world is like this, so you should behave like that.) This creates something of a problem. You see, people identify very closely with the philosophy they have chosen to follow. It's a person's "path". Thus, insulting their "religion" insults who they are. This is why followers of religion often have a hard time accepting scientific facts and reason; it insults the sum total of their worldview.
Let's take an old favorite, Christianity, for example.
You have Christianity the belief and Christianity the philosophy. Generally speaking, when someone says, "Christianity", both of these things are meant at the same time. The philosophy of Christianity is one of
neoplatonism, most heavily influenced by the beliefs of
St. Augustine. This includes the concept of
original sin,
divine grace, and most importantly,
salvation. Allow me to sum up Neoplatonism like this; God is good, you have sinned, and you need to be sorry. Very, very sorry. You need to apologize like you need air, water, food, and shelter.
Then, you have Christianity the belief, which is that God created the world in seven days,
the earth has only existed between 5,700 and 10,000 years, Jesus Christ was the literal incarnation of a creator deity, etc and so on. This is the sort of thing that people have been distancing themselves from as of late.
The interesting thing about religion is that is actually weaves its narratives around its philosophies. Christianity, for example, creates a story about an omnipotent father-figure god who, to use a little memespeak here, is disappoint. He will punish you for your sins with the ultimate consequence (eternal damnation) UNLESS you believe that this one avatar of his (HIS ONLY SON, FOR GOD'S SAKE! HIS ONLY SOOOOOOONNNNNNN!)
died an excruciatingly painful death so you could be in paradise forever, you feel really bad about the whole thing, and are constantly asking forgiveness for just about everything you do. (Keep in mind, the "seven deadly sins" are designed to be practically unavoidable, unless you're some sort of crazy almost non-human eunuch.)
As one of my Christian friends put it, "Everyone needs a redeemer.".
My prejudice is mostly with the Bible because it isn't a "Book" but a compilation of books and the books that are part of this compilation where picked and chosen selectively to be convenient to whoever was in charge of the church. So even if everything that is written on it is true it would still be missing many pieces and/or can be biased toward a certain understading or set of rules that might not be true.
I have to agree with you a bit here. Even myself being one who does profess to believe in scriptural writings, I do feel I have to keep this in mind when reading and studying them.
An interesting thing to note is that
The Council of Nicaea, which you are alluding to here, put those books together in that order while excluding others specifically to tailor an official religion for the Roman populace; thus, it weaved its narrative around its philosophy.
So why am I talking about all of this? Well, I believe that before someone buys into something, they should be as informed about it as they can. When you buy into a religion, you're adopting a worldview that includes a belief about the world around you that supports a given philosophy. Granted, there are variables that only do one or the other, such as speculative religion (in which one follows the philosophy, but not the supporting belief [such as "moderate" Christians]) or heretical religion (in which one believes the supporting worldview of the religion, but chooses to go the complete opposite direction in the philosophy, such as non-atheistic Satanism in which one worships the "villain" in Christianity whom he believes to literally exist just as Christianity says he does), but the mainstream ones are 2-for-1 deals.
Let's say you wanted just the philosophy of Christianity, though. You have to ask yourself, "Do I see the world the same way St. Augustine did? Do I want to feel sorry and guilty about doing anything that Christianity sees as a sin?". If the answer is no, you're likely better off trying to find a philosophy that better suits you. Maybe it's Satanism, maybe it's Buddhism, maybe it doesn't have a label at all.
Do you, friends. Do. You.
I don't want to be that guy but why Satanism? By nature, Satanism is intolerant and obviously an offensive parody. It is named after the tempter and the most evil being of creation. In the article you posted, it mentions that it is somewhat founded based on principles of Ayn Rand. Have you ever read any of her philosophy? She is absolutely nuts. Not only does she contradict herself multiple times, but she also quotes characters from her stories as if they were authorities on the matter. Try reading the first chapter of The Virtue of Selfishness called "Objectivist Ethics" and you will see her philosophy crumble. It starts to make points, but fails when she questions them especially when she starts talking about the goodwill of mankind. The article also mentions Friedrich Nietzsche who was driven mad by his ridiculously prideful philosophy. Never before had such a frail and fragile man believed he had so much power.
Edit: I just want to say that I do have a lot of respect for Catboy's intelligence and I often look to him as an authority on any thread where he comments about games and computer things which are way past my knowledge.
First, Tatripp, let me grant you an ENORMOUS amount of credit for actually reading the article and not running away in fear. Seriously, huge credit.
Let me also show you the way to a certain article that will help you understand the
key differences between Satanism and Objectivism.
I will also add to what Nemo has written there by saying that another difference is that Objectivism tends to be a bit more libertarian, while Satanism is more meritocratic. Hence I can have wildly liberal ideas (such as the one in my signature) and still absolutely be a Satanist. More on that some other time, perhaps.
LaVey's Satanism strikes me as hedonism mixed with shock value. I will admit the underlying philosophy is no less sound than that of many religions. However, it can't be denied that Satanism has a counter-culture element to it. If the "Satan" of LaVeyan Satanism is purely symbolic, as LaVeyan Satanist believe, then there is no reason to use the word "Satan" at all. By evoking that name, LaVey served no practical purpose for the religion he was building. The religion could be fundamentally the same if it were called anything else. Ultimately by employing the name Satan with it’s obvious connotations to the abrahamic faiths, LaVey's religion ends up looking like little more than a veiled attack on the traditional churches. That's not to say that there is anything wrong with openly opposing the norms of other religions, but it makes for a weak basis for the formation of a new religion.
Just my 2 cent, no disrespect intended of course.
Tons of credit to you, too, Prophet, for reading first, thinking second, and posting last. (Seriously, this thread could not be going any better.)
Some of what you say is true. It is very much hedonism with shock value, and it does indeed have a counter-culture element to it.
While I can't find the article at just this very moment, there was a very detailed piece I had read a while back that explains that the use of "Satan" is very deliberate. It means "adversary" in Hebrew, and we would consider ourselves the adversary of much of theistic madness.
As for it being the basis of a religion, keep in mind it's not the sort of thing where we're trying to convert everyone; many other religions get their idea of success from the amount of people they have. Satanism counts its successes by the quality of its members and the fruit of their efforts. In line with my statements above, you could call LaVeyan Satanism more of a purely "speculative" religion, with really just a philosophy. Or you could say that it is one which observes the world first and then makes a decision based on that data.
In summary, I say this; think carefully about what you believe. Take it apart, piece by piece, see if it fits you, if you can very accurately say that you are a tride-and-true part of what you have been raised to belong to. It can only help.
@
Xdqwerty:
@
BakerMan:
@
NinStar:
@
a_username_that_isnt_cool:
