Satanism is the ONLY Rational Religion

[Whateverist]

I just can't get past using "rational" as a qualifier for "religion". Wouldn't that just be a contradiction in terms?

[Violet]

Besides, "rational religion" is an oxymoron.

And the doctrines of logic are?

---

I just can't get past using "rational" as a qualifier for "religion". Wouldn't that just be a contradiction in terms?

No. Rationalization is an imperative step in accepting a religion, and is what holds one to a religion.

---

We don't believe in Satan, he is merely our favorite mythological character.

Can I be your favorite 'mythological character' instead?

---

Rational religion?

Oh man, my sides are killing me. With that kind of comedy you're gonna go far kid!

Indeed, humans have been to their moon, and to still more distant places by proxy.

[Chas]

Advocating sociopathic behavior is not rational.

I would argue that sociopathy is the pinnacle of organic rationality. Unless, of course, we're using a definition of such wherein the content of said rationality is utterly irrelevant... in which case: sociopathy is exactly as rational as any other 'rationality'.

Advocacy might not be decidedly rational, on the other hand... so you could ultimately be right. Just... not in the way you likely thought you were.

Actually, I am right in just the way I thought I was. It is the advocating the behavior that is not rational.

[Boris Karloff]

haha well my atheism also includes disbelief in Satan.

[Tripwire]

I'll tell you what, kid - how about starting a thread and make a case for why we should take LaVey seriously instead of pointing and laughing. C'mon, it'll be fun.

Satanism is the only religion that promotes freethought & atheism. Yet it can also provide the dogma & ritual that man needs, something plain ol' atheism can't do.

Wrong, man needs no ritual. We would be dead right now if we did. The first humans created were atheists, making thousand year old humans smarter than pretty much half the world.

---

haha well my atheism also includes disbelief in Satan.

Satanists do not worship or believe in Satan.

---

I just can't get past using "rational" as a qualifier for "religion". Wouldn't that just be a contradiction in terms?

[Sword of Christ]

If you go back far enough to when there was no ritual activity at all then you aren't dealing with modern humans but some kind of homo erectus kind of thing. You could say that was before we were fully formed in the image of God so the molded clay wasn't quite baked.

[Esquilax]

If you go back far enough to when there was no ritual activity at all then you aren't dealing with modern humans but some kind of homo erectus kind of thing. You could say that was before we were fully formed in the image of God so the molded clay wasn't quite baked.

And where in the bible did you find that?

[Sword of Christ]

And where in the bible did you find that?

Genesis 1:27 though you can interpret it with the modern scientific framework of what we know for a fact actually happened over time. Better to do that than insist that the world is 6000 years old and all that business, the Bible isn't a science book.

[Esquilax]

Genesis 1:27 though you can interpret it with the modern scientific framework of what we know for a fact actually happened over time. Better to do that than insist that the world is 6000 years old and all that business, the Bible isn't a science book.

Which leads me to a much more important question: why work off the premise that you need to retrofit all this biblical stuff into current scientific knowledge at all? People have been doing that for centuries, they'd done it for things we now know are wrong, and I guarantee that whatever we discover in the future will be subjected to the same treatment.

Why not just see if what the bible says stands up to modern scrutiny, rather than going through these logical contortions so that it always "does"? Afraid of what you'll find?

[Sword of Christ]

Which leads me to a much more important question: why work off the premise that you need to retrofit all this biblical stuff into current scientific knowledge at all?

Even 2000 years ago there were theologians who didn't take Genesis as a literal account of how the world and humanity was formed so this isn't really a retrofit but something that was present right from the start. Everything we know of about the universe is perfectly compatible with a purpose made creation event by an eternal non-physical supreme intelligence/consciousness. Not only compatible but a good fit, there is a rational understandable order and a definite process of physical formation in a sequence of stages where various forms are "brought forth" into the creation.

People have been doing that for centuries, they'd done it for things we now know are wrong, and I guarantee that whatever we discover in the future will be subjected to the same treatment.

We know there isn't a Zeus ruling the skies or a Poseidon ruling the ocean at this point but the Bible already pointed this out ahead of time. You have a physical natural order and a non-physical creator of this natural order. You have God, Gods creation and the creatures of Gods creation. This isn't something that has been proven wrong therefore the premise still holds.

Why not just see if what the bible says stands up to modern scrutiny

It does if you understand it a certain way, which I'd argue has always been the correct way of understanding it. Sure we know that the Earth isn't a flat platform resting on stone pillars and under a crystal like dome with waters above it but that's minor detail of how the universe is structured. It doesn't matter how the universe is structured as long as God did all the initial structuring, and there is an awful lot of very complex structure here, all of it having to be perfectly balanced for life to exist anywhere at all. So our perception of the creation may have changed but at the heart of it is still the very same eternal God, the God of the Bible is the God of the universe.

, rather than going through these logical contortions so that it always "does"? Afraid of what you'll find?

You don't have to contort anything as God is a logical proposition to begin with. Denying evolution or the age of the Earth in favour of a literal reading of the Bible isn't logical at all seeing that would be denial of hard data and facts. You can point out that none of these thing particularly impacts upon the universe as a purpose made creation which I would strongly suggest to you it is.