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

[Brian37]

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.