(April 9, 2017 at 12:48 pm)AceBoogie Wrote:

(April 9, 2017 at 8:09 am)Brian37 Wrote: Humans cannot be fictional things either, sure they can dream up fiction, but you cannot be a God anymore than you can be Superman. Worship of a God is the same as worship of the state, both foolish. Worship of yourself also. There is a huge difference between valuing oneself and being self centered. Trump worships himself, nothing any really empathetic person should aspire to be in reality.

Satan doesn't exist either so I do find the new age nutters trying to make "Satanism" a new religion just as silly. 

I am sure your post was sarcastic, but still, this was for anyone who might read this, not just for you.

Eh, yes and no. I was being a bit dramatic, sure, but I truly am a Satanist.

I consider myself to be the center of my own universe and I devote my life to pursuing happiness and fulfillment in this world.

Do I literally believe I am a god in the sense that I have supernatural powers and can create and destroy things with my mind? No. That's just silly.

I do however believe in being honest with myself about my animal nature and I believe in doing what is best for me in life, including helping those that I love and care about. The point I was attempting to make with MK is that it is in our nature to attempt to reconcile certain ideas by ascribing different things to "god." But if we are completely honest with ourselves I think we'll find that even when we prayed to "god" as theists, we were simply praying to some higher version of ourselves, some fantasy version of us that exists only within our minds.

That's why people tend to ascribe qualities to "god" that coincide with their personal beliefs. It's simply a projection of your own will... your own thoughts and feelings. That's why I say that I'm God and I worship me. I think there is nothing wrong with being self centered as long as you are aware that you are self centered and you are disciplined enough to control your own ego.

In a nutshell, Satanism isn't about worshiping any sort of deity. It's about being the best version of you that you can be, becoming a god so to speak, and pursuing fulfillment in this life by accepting yourself as an animal and allowing yourself to be as honest with you as you can be... then and only then do I believe that I can truly be happy in following my desires and goals. That's just for me. To each their own.

Why? "Satan" is a word rooted in religion and mythology. You don't need it, it offers nothing new, it wont automatically make you do good or bad, it is still like any old religion just as superfluous. The new agers who do this are simply trying to take an old idea and create an alternative to the past. Nope sorry, trying to create a new club and strip it of old beliefs and superstitions and deities is all you are doing. 

I don't even like it when atheists try to create their own "churches" and set up their own ideas of a perfect moral list. Evolution produces individuals, and our species ability to be cruel or compassionate is in that, in the individual, not the artificial clubs we create.

(April 9, 2017 at 3:03 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Why? "Satan" is a word rooted in religion and mythology. You don't need it, it offers nothing new, it wont automatically make you do good or bad, it is still like any old religion just as superfluous. The new agers who do this are simply trying to take an old idea and create an alternative to the past. Nope sorry, trying to create a new club and strip it of old beliefs and superstitions and deities is all you are doing. 

I don't even like it when atheists try to create their own "churches" and set up their own ideas of a perfect moral list. Evolution produces individuals, and our species ability to be cruel or compassionate is in that, in the individual, not the artificial clubs we create.

You are missing the point entirely. Satanism isn't about "offering something new." Satanism has nothing to do with "new agers" or New Age Spirituality. Satanism is not a "new club [stripped of old beliefs and superstitions]."

You don't even understand what you're attempting to disagree with. You shot and you missed. Move on.

(April 8, 2017 at 9:25 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(April 8, 2017 at 9:18 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even you Khem. I am even willing to grant that you would be justified in believing some things to be more praiseworthy than others. Belief in a transcendent hierarchy of values is, after all, a properly basic belief. However, a conviction that there is no ultimate transcendent value is in conflict with the opinion that there are values. All I am saying is unless you appeal to some transcendent source of values your opinion is unwarrented.

I don't see why values must logically have a transcendent source. It's logically possible for values come from within rather than without.

Perhaps. I simply have not seem a coherent argument supporting that assertion.

(April 9, 2017 at 3:23 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(April 8, 2017 at 9:25 pm)Grandizer Wrote: I don't see why values must logically have a transcendent source. It's logically possible for values come from within rather than without.

Perhaps. I simply have not seem a coherent argument supporting that assertion.

I think in the 2nd thread I linked, we discussed enough to show it's a paradox for it to be solely subjective.

(April 9, 2017 at 3:09 pm)AceBoogie Wrote:

(April 9, 2017 at 3:03 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Why? "Satan" is a word rooted in religion and mythology. You don't need it, it offers nothing new, it wont automatically make you do good or bad, it is still like any old religion just as superfluous. The new agers who do this are simply trying to take an old idea and create an alternative to the past. Nope sorry, trying to create a new club and strip it of old beliefs and superstitions and deities is all you are doing. 

I don't even like it when atheists try to create their own "churches" and set up their own ideas of a perfect moral list. Evolution produces individuals, and our species ability to be cruel or compassionate is in that, in the individual, not the artificial clubs we create.

You are missing the point entirely. Satanism isn't about "offering something new." Satanism has nothing to do with "new agers" or New Age Spirituality. Satanism is not a "new club [stripped of old beliefs and superstitions]."

You don't even understand what you're attempting to disagree with. You shot and you missed. Move on.

Yes it is, it is no different than the Hebrews starting a splinter sect, stealing the name Yahweh from prior polytheism and elevating the character to the one true god.

Now please dont lie to me and claim the word "Satan" does not have an older past than the way you chose to view the word. The character name goes further back than the current trend to strip it of superstition.

This is the same bullshit tactic I get from fans of Buddhism, "It isn't a religion it is a philosophy". Despite the fact that I can point to the earliest mythology of that religion that was ripe with superstitions and claims of the divine world. 

Where did the name "Satan" start? Not with you, and not with your current position, it was stolen from prior traditions.  And again, I really don't care if you say it is not about deity belief. It is still an attempt to compete with surrounding and prior clubs. 

Our species behaviors are in our evolution, not in our clubs. Clubs are the labels humans invent to create social order, to make excuses to separate ourselves from other groups. It is still artificial. Atheists do it too. "Atheist" is also not a moral code or a "philosophy", it merely means "off".

(April 9, 2017 at 3:41 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Yes it is, it is no different than the Hebrews starting a splinter sect, stealing the name Yahweh from prior polytheism and elevating the character to the one true god.

Wrong. Satanism was not an attempt to "elevate [a] character (satan) to the one true god."

(April 9, 2017 at 3:41 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Now please dont lie to me and claim the word "Satan" does not have an older past than the way you chose to view the word. The character name goes further back than the current trend to strip it of superstition.

So first you said Satanism was an attempt to elevate Satan to the one true god, like the Hebrews did with Yahweh, now you're saying it's a trend to "strip" the word Satan of superstition? Which one is it? I'll address your comments on the etymology of the word "Satan" later.

(April 9, 2017 at 3:41 pm)Brian37 Wrote: This is the same bullshit tactic I get from fans of Buddhism, "It isn't a religion it is a philosophy". Despite the fact that I can point to the earliest mythology of that religion that was ripe with superstitions and claims of the divine world. 

Buddhism is nothing like Satanism and I'm not attempting to call Satanism anything other than what it is, you are. Not sure what you're trying to say here.

(April 9, 2017 at 3:41 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Where did the name "Satan" start? Not with you, and not with your current position, it was stolen from prior traditions.  And again, I really don't care if you say it is not about deity belief. It is still an attempt to compete with surrounding and prior clubs. 

Satan is a word, not a name as you so ignorantly put it, that seems to have first appeared in the Torah, meaning adversary or accuser. I never claimed to create the word Satan. And no, Satanism is not about belief in a deity, nor does Satanism attempt to "compete with surrounding and prior clubs." Once again, you're completely off the mark and you don't even understand what you're attempting to disagree with. What exactly is your disagreement by the way? What are you even arguing here? So far you've shown me nothing except a complete lack of understanding of what Satanism is. If you'd like a lesson on the subject, I'd be happy to discuss it with you via a private message. Though, for some reason I have a creeping suspicion that you have no interest in actually being educated on the subject. You seem to be too attached to your current views to care.

(April 9, 2017 at 3:41 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Our species behaviors are in our evolution, not in our clubs. Clubs are the labels humans invent to create social order, to make excuses to separate ourselves from other groups. It is still artificial. Atheists do it too. "Atheist" is also not a moral code or a "philosophy", it merely means "off".

Interestingly enough, that's exactly what Satanism is. An acceptance of our human nature and rejection of all mythology and fairy tales. Literally. The Satanic Bible is basically a self help book, so to speak. And labels are important, whether or not you choose to admit it. Labels do not change function, but they are still useful for what they are.

You truly have no understanding of what Satanism is and you've displayed that here fantastically.

Like I said I'm not even sure what you're arguing here.

(April 9, 2017 at 4:07 pm)AceBoogie Wrote:

(April 9, 2017 at 3:41 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Yes it is, it is no different than the Hebrews starting a splinter sect, stealing the name Yahweh from prior polytheism and elevating the character to the one true god.

Wrong. Satanism was not an attempt to "elevate [a] character (satan) to the one true god."

(April 9, 2017 at 3:41 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Now please dont lie to me and claim the word "Satan" does not have an older past than the way you chose to view the word. The character name goes further back than the current trend to strip it of superstition.

So first you said Satanism was an attempt to elevate Satan to the one true god, like the Hebrews did with Yahweh, now you're saying it's a trend to "strip" the word Satan of superstition? Which one is it? I'll address your comments on the etymology of the word "Satan" later.

(April 9, 2017 at 3:41 pm)Brian37 Wrote: This is the same bullshit tactic I get from fans of Buddhism, "It isn't a religion it is a philosophy". Despite the fact that I can point to the earliest mythology of that religion that was ripe with superstitions and claims of the divine world. 

Buddhism is nothing like Satanism and I'm not attempting to call Satanism anything other than what it is, you are. Not sure what you're trying to say here.

(April 9, 2017 at 3:41 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Where did the name "Satan" start? Not with you, and not with your current position, it was stolen from prior traditions.  And again, I really don't care if you say it is not about deity belief. It is still an attempt to compete with surrounding and prior clubs. 

Satan is a word, not a name as you so ignorantly put it, that seems to have first appeared in the Torah, meaning adversary or accuser. I never claimed to create the word Satan. And no, Satanism is not about belief in a deity, nor does Satanism attempt to "compete with surrounding and prior clubs." Once again, you're completely off the mark and you don't even understand what you're attempting to disagree with. What exactly is your disagreement by the way? What are you even arguing here? So far you've shown me nothing except a complete lack of understanding of what Satanism is. If you'd like a lesson on the subject, I'd be happy to discuss it with you via a private message. Though, for some reason I have a creeping suspicion that you have no interest in actually being educated on the subject. You seem to be too attached to your current views to care.

(April 9, 2017 at 3:41 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Our species behaviors are in our evolution, not in our clubs. Clubs are the labels humans invent to create social order, to make excuses to separate ourselves from other groups. It is still artificial. Atheists do it too. "Atheist" is also not a moral code or a "philosophy", it merely means "off".

Interestingly enough, that's exactly what Satanism is. An acceptance of our human nature and rejection of all mythology and fairy tales. Literally. The Satanic Bible is basically a self help book, so to speak. And labels are important, whether or not you choose to admit it. Labels do not change function, but they are still useful for what they are.

You truly have no understanding of what Satanism is and you've displayed that here fantastically.

Like I said I'm not even sure what you're arguing here.

Talk about missing the point.

No, I am not saying you elevated Satan to a god status. I AM saying the character name is stolen from prior traditions. What the newer users view it at does not change the fact it was used by prior people.

Again it is just as stupid for Buddhists to claim their religion has nothing to do with deities or superstition. Even TODAY you can find BUDDHISTS with superstitions like Nirvana and still believe in spirits. And even today, there are Christians and Muslims who literally STILL believe in a real deity called Satan, regardless of how you view the word. 

You trying to cop out to a "philosophy" is no different. It is incorporating old motifs, character names and changing the interpretation.

It works the same way with any product one might buy. Coke puts out a cherry soda, and not to be outdone Pepsi looks at that and says "hey we need to get in on that" and they put out a new cherry flavor soda, give it a different color can and slightly different flavor, but none of that changes that the roots of soda were around long before either company. 

You are STILL taking old ideas and attempting to make them less dogmatic. 

You are still marketing a club and still using a word that has a far longer past than your new interpretation.

(April 9, 2017 at 4:20 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Talk about missing the point.

No, I am not saying you elevated Satan to a god status. I AM saying the character name is stolen from prior traditions. What the newer users view it at does not change the fact it was used by prior people.

Satan is technically a word, not a name. And once again, no one here is claiming that the word satan is new or was created by Satanists. Who are you even arguing with about this? It sure isn't me.

(April 9, 2017 at 3:41 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Again it is just as stupid for Buddhists to claim their religion has nothing to do with deities or superstition. Even TODAY you can find BUDDHISTS with superstitions like Nirvana and still believe in spirits. 

What the fuck are you even talking about Buddhism for?

(April 9, 2017 at 3:41 pm)Brian37 Wrote: You trying to cop out to a "philosophy" is no different. It is incorporating old motifs, character names and changing the interpretation.

Satanism is a philosophy. A religion requires belief in a supernatural deity. Satanists do not belief in supernatural deities. What the fuck are you even talking about?

(April 9, 2017 at 3:41 pm)Brian37 Wrote: It works the same way with any product one might buy. Coke puts out a cherry soda, and not to be outdone Pepsi looks at that and says "hey we need to get in on that" and they put out a new cherry flavor soda, give it a different color can and slightly different flavor, but none of that changes that the roots of soda were around long before either company. 

You are STILL taking old ideas and attempting to make them less dogmatic. 

You are still marketing a club and still using a word that has a far longer past than your new interpretation.

You are still making the mistake of thinking that Satanism is somehow in competition with religion. It is not. No one is "marketing a club." what are you talking about? Are we having the same conversation? And once again, no one here disagrees that the word satan was first seen in the Torah. Who are you arguing with this about?

We can go back and forth on this for the rest of the day if you like, but so far the only thing you've displayed is that you don't understand what Satanism is and that you seem to have no interest in understanding what it is.

Not sure how many times you want to repeat yourself here, but I'm getting sick of participating in this pointless back and forth, so unless you offer something new in your next post, I doubt I'll be replying.

I'm still open to continuing a discussion on Satanism via private message, but like I said I have a creeping suspicion, for whatever reason, that you have no interest in this type of open dialogue and would rather continue your pointless, endless rant about how satan isn't a new word.

(April 9, 2017 at 3:23 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(April 8, 2017 at 9:25 pm)Grandizer Wrote: I don't see why values must logically have a transcendent source. It's logically possible for values come from within rather than without.

Perhaps. I simply have not seem a coherent argument supporting that assertion.

Even your "transcendent value" comes from within the transcendent value-er.....so.......? Obviously, it;s not an issue of coherence or even an area of disagreement. You;ve accepted that value comes from within -something-...you just don;t think that thing can be a human person..despite all evidence to the contrary.

Why do you say this sort of shit?

Quote:transcendent source.

Just keep kicking that can theists or resorting to the laziness of magic