The false self and our knowledge of it's deception proves God.

[GrandizerII]

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.

You call it assertion as if your view is any better. What you call "assertion" is more a proposed explanation, one that is overall a better explanation than the God explanation. We observe that this natural world exists, and we observe that values often differ as certain human factors differ. We don't, on the other hand, observe that a divine moral lawgiver exists, and that values are constant and thereby reflect the constant nature of such a being.

[Brian37]

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.

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?

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?

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.

"Its not a religion it is a philosophy"

Yea and that is also not the first time I have heard that and you are also not the first or only label to argue that.

It is still incorporating prior words, characters, motifs, demonizing the parts of the past you don't like while trying to remove the superstition and dogmatism. 

Look, it boils down the same way for all upstart clubs. 

"I don't like the old ways"

The early Hebrews got tired of the old Canaanite polytheism, so they took the Yahweh name and adapted it. 

The Rasta religion evolved the same way. It stems from prior African Christian/Jewish ideas.

You don't realize that even Jews who call themselves "secular Jews" do the same thing. They are Jews who go through the motions but dont believe in the literal God.

You ask Buddhists and they also dodge their superstitious past and will ALSO argue that it is a "philosophy".

Ideas never get pulled out of someone's ass magically. People like to say Thomas Edison is an "inventor" but the reality is, someone educated him, and he had to look around him to draw ideas. The only thing he really did was beat everyone else to the patent office. 

Newer clubs sell the same way older clubs do, they dont pop out of a vacuum. They all still draw on old ideas and names and motifs, all designed to say "I am different".

I am not arguing that you are a bad person, but I am arguing your label drew ideas from the past. I am arguing that "Satan" is still a word older than how you personally chose to view it now.

God vs Satan is much older than your "Satanism'. I have seen plenty prior than you for decades argue that Satan really was not the bad guy people make him out to be. Even before you I have argued, I don't care. Just like I don't care that some Buddhist want to ignore their superstitious past. 

You are STILL  taking and old word and incorporating it to create a new label.

[AceBoogie]

"Its not a religion it is a philosophy"

Yea and that is also not the first time I have heard that and you are also not the first or only label to argue that.

It is still incorporating prior words, characters, motifs, demonizing the parts of the past you don't like while trying to remove the superstition and dogmatism. 

Look, it boils down the same way for all upstart clubs. 

"I don't like the old ways"

The early Hebrews got tired of the old Canaanite polytheism, so they took the Yahweh name and adapted it. 

The Rasta religion evolved the same way. It stems from prior African Christian/Jewish ideas.

You don't realize that even Jews who call themselves "secular Jews" do the same thing. They are Jews who go through the motions but dont believe in the literal God.

You ask Buddhists and they also dodge their superstitious past and will ALSO argue that it is a "philosophy".

Ideas never get pulled out of someone's ass magically. People like to say Thomas Edison is an "inventor" but the reality is, someone educated him, and he had to look around him to draw ideas. The only thing he really did was beat everyone else to the patent office. 

Newer clubs sell the same way older clubs do, they dont pop out of a vacuum. They all still draw on old ideas and names and motifs, all designed to say "I am different".

I am not arguing that you are a bad person, but I am arguing your label drew ideas from the past. I am arguing that "Satan" is still a word older than how you personally chose to view it now.

God vs Satan is much older than your "Satanism'. I have seen plenty prior than you for decades argue that Satan really was not the bad guy people make him out to be. Even before you I have argued, I don't care. Just like I don't care that some Buddhist want to ignore their superstitious past. 

You are STILL  taking and old word and incorporating it to create a new label.

Goddam you are one thick headed individual. Talking to you is like talking to a wall. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, no one is arguing that satan is a new word or idea. No matter how many times you repeat yourself Satanism and Buddhism have almost nothing in common. Are you even reading my responses? And I promise you there is no superstition in Satanism. You have shown time and time again that not only do you have no clue what Satanism is, you have no interest in having a true discussion about it because you're so obsessed with getting the point across that labels are somehow antiquated and useless and that if someone has created already a word then that somehow renders any idea which includes usage of that word invalid. Not sure how you came to that conclusion though.

I'm at the point where I'm starting to get somewhat annoyed with this pointless back and forth, so at this point I'm going to resign from the conversation. I wish I could say that I gained something from this, but I didn't.

If you ever change your mind and want to learn about Satanism is, send me a private message.

edit: No one is trying to "sell" you on Satanism. The only reason I even offered to explain it to you is because you've demonstrated that you clearly have no idea what it is or what its philosophy is comprised of. Here's the difference, Satanism actually is a philosophy. Buddhism is a religion. And even if Buddhism is not a religion, which I've heard even some atheists argue that it isn't, that doesn't make it any less full of shit, so your point is moot anyway.

[Brian37]

"Its not a religion it is a philosophy"

Yea and that is also not the first time I have heard that and you are also not the first or only label to argue that.

It is still incorporating prior words, characters, motifs, demonizing the parts of the past you don't like while trying to remove the superstition and dogmatism. 

Look, it boils down the same way for all upstart clubs. 

"I don't like the old ways"

The early Hebrews got tired of the old Canaanite polytheism, so they took the Yahweh name and adapted it. 

The Rasta religion evolved the same way. It stems from prior African Christian/Jewish ideas.

You don't realize that even Jews who call themselves "secular Jews" do the same thing. They are Jews who go through the motions but dont believe in the literal God.

You ask Buddhists and they also dodge their superstitious past and will ALSO argue that it is a "philosophy".

Ideas never get pulled out of someone's ass magically. People like to say Thomas Edison is an "inventor" but the reality is, someone educated him, and he had to look around him to draw ideas. The only thing he really did was beat everyone else to the patent office. 

Newer clubs sell the same way older clubs do, they dont pop out of a vacuum. They all still draw on old ideas and names and motifs, all designed to say "I am different".

I am not arguing that you are a bad person, but I am arguing your label drew ideas from the past. I am arguing that "Satan" is still a word older than how you personally chose to view it now.

God vs Satan is much older than your "Satanism'. I have seen plenty prior than you for decades argue that Satan really was not the bad guy people make him out to be. Even before you I have argued, I don't care. Just like I don't care that some Buddhist want to ignore their superstitious past. 

You are STILL  taking and old word and incorporating it to create a new label.

Goddam you are one thick headed individual. Talking to you is like talking to a wall. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, no one is arguing that satan is a new word or idea. No matter how many times you repeat yourself Satanism and Buddhism have almost nothing in common. Are you even reading my responses? And I promise you there is no superstition in Satanism. You have shown time and time again that not only do you have no clue what Satanism is, you have no interest in having a true discussion about it because you're so obsessed with getting the point across that labels are somehow antiquated and useless and that if someone has created already a word then that somehow renders any idea which includes usage of that word invalid. Not sure how you came to that conclusion though.

I'm at the point where I'm starting to get somewhat annoyed with this pointless back and forth, so at this point I'm going to resign from the conversation. I wish I could say that I gained something from this, but I didn't.

If you ever change your mind and want to learn about Satanism is, send me a private message.

edit: No one is trying to "sell" you on Satanism. The only reason I even offered to explain it to you is because you've demonstrated that you clearly have no idea what it is or what its philosophy is comprised of. Here's the difference, Satanism actually is a philosophy. Buddhism is a religion. And even if Buddhism is not a religion, which I've heard even some atheists argue that it isn't, that doesn't make it any less full of shit, so your point is moot anyway.

Please QUOTE me IN EXACT WORDS where I accused you of selling me anything.

I SAID your are using a word rooted in a past older than your own personal interpretation. 

You are arguing an new version of an old word. In the same way Buddhists don't want to admit their own past. Just like there are Jews who skip the God but like the ritual. Just like Bill O'Reilly has argued Catholicism to be a "philosophy" and not a religion.

Satanism is a word to describe others who buy into the same ideas you do. It still has "Satan" rooted in the word itself. Just like Jews hate it when you point out the word "Yahweh" started out as a polytheistic CLAIM.

YES I am sure you want to call it a "philosophy" but again, doesn't change that someone in the past took the word "Satan" from the old traditions and decided to market it as "philosophy".

[AceBoogie]

Please QUOTE me IN EXACT WORDS where I accused you of selling me anything.

I SAID your are using a word rooted in a past older than your own personal interpretation. 

You are arguing an new version of an old word. In the same way Buddhists don't want to admit their own past. Just like there are Jews who skip the God but like the ritual. Just like Bill O'Reilly has argued Catholicism to be a "philosophy" and not a religion.

Satanism is a word to describe others who buy into the same ideas you do. It still has "Satan" rooted in the word itself. Just like Jews hate it when you point out the word "Yahweh" started out as a polytheistic CLAIM.

YES I am sure you want to call it a "philosophy" but again, doesn't change that someone in the past took the word "Satan" from the old traditions and decided to market it as "philosophy".

LMFAO. ^^

Proof that not all atheists are intelligent.

edit:

You are literally just repeating the same things several times after I've explained that I'm not disagreeing with you on some of your points. You are one moronic individual.

[Brian37]

Please QUOTE me IN EXACT WORDS where I accused you of selling me anything.

I SAID your are using a word rooted in a past older than your own personal interpretation. 

You are arguing an new version of an old word. In the same way Buddhists don't want to admit their own past. Just like there are Jews who skip the God but like the ritual. Just like Bill O'Reilly has argued Catholicism to be a "philosophy" and not a religion.

Satanism is a word to describe others who buy into the same ideas you do. It still has "Satan" rooted in the word itself. Just like Jews hate it when you point out the word "Yahweh" started out as a polytheistic CLAIM.

YES I am sure you want to call it a "philosophy" but again, doesn't change that someone in the past took the word "Satan" from the old traditions and decided to market it as "philosophy".

LMFAO. ^^

Proof that not all atheists are intelligent.

edit:

You are literally just repeating the same things several times after I've explained that I'm not disagreeing with you on some of your points. You are one moronic individual.

So the word "Satan" is new? 

So the word "Satan" isn't used by Muslims or Christians ever. They never had a concept of God vs Satan. 

Magically the letter sequence "Satan" became a new and correct usage when you started adding "ism" to it? The Suffix never existed prior to your personal interpretation?

Yep and Buddha was not born of the Queen Maya, and he didn't avoid the birth canal because that is now just a "philosophy" too.

[AceBoogie]

So the word "Satan" is new? 

So the word "Satan" isn't used by Muslims or Christians ever. They never had a concept of God vs Satan. 

Magically the letter sequence "Satan" became a new and correct usage when you started adding "ism" to it? The Suffix never existed prior to your personal interpretation?

Yep and Buddha was not born of the Queen Maya, and he didn't avoid the birth canal because that is now just a "philosophy" too.

And still Brian is arguing a point that I never disagreed with.

How fucking retarded.

[Brian37]

So the word "Satan" is new? 

So the word "Satan" isn't used by Muslims or Christians ever. They never had a concept of God vs Satan. 

Magically the letter sequence "Satan" became a new and correct usage when you started adding "ism" to it? The Suffix never existed prior to your personal interpretation?

Yep and Buddha was not born of the Queen Maya, and he didn't avoid the birth canal because that is now just a "philosophy" too.

And still Brian is arguing a point that I never disagreed with.

How fucking retarded.

Yes you do, otherwise you would see that you don't need to buy the label "Satanist" 

You simply don't like me pointing out the history of the word.

It isn't a "philosophy" it is merely a club based on older ideas.

You like your label like any other person does. You simply get upset that I point out the past it is rooted in.

I have run into "Satanists" long before you and outside this website. And it stems from a past where others see the character as more moral as the God character.

Your attempt to now call it a "philosophy" is merely attempt to ditch the dogmatism and superstition.

[AceBoogie]

And still Brian is arguing a point that I never disagreed with.

How fucking retarded.

Yes you do, otherwise you would see that you don't need to buy the label "Satanist" 

You simply don't like me pointing out the history of the word.

It isn't a "philosophy" it is merely a club based on older ideas.

You like your label like any other person does. You simply get upset that I point out the past it is rooted in.

I have run into "Satanists" long before you and outside this website. And it stems from a past where others see the character as more moral as the God character.

Your attempt to now call it a "philosophy" is merely attempt to ditch the dogmatism and superstition.

LMAO legends say brian is still arguing the same uncontested point to this day

[Harry Nevis]

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

If you can show how this is rationally possible in a way or form, without God as the source, then show it. Otherwise, Theists here have all argued why it's not possible and we have shown clear reasoning on this part.

You can't show how it's rationally possible that there is any other source.

---

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.

Why argue the obvious?