Atheism / Satanism

[Simon Moon]

Hello, I'm new here and I just wanted to know what the difference between atheism and LeVeyan Satanism is? I brought it up to one of my friends and they said they were practically the same thing. Any insight into this?

Thanks in advance.

Can't be bothered to read through all the posts in this thread. But this equation gives stupid a whole new meaning. Maybe the distinction between not believing and believing in yet another god, badass, idol or Mickey Mouse should hint at the difference.

LeVeyen Satanists do not believe in the existence of the Biblical Satan character. Most LeVayan Satanists are atheists. 

Wiki - Contrary to popular belief, LaVeyan Satanism does not involve "devil worship" or worship of any deities. It is an atheistic philosophy that asserts that "each individual is his or her own god [and that] there is no room for any other god".[11] Adherents instead see the character of Satan as a symbol of pride, carnality, liberty, enlightenment, undefiled wisdom, and of a cosmos which Satanists perceive to be motivated by a "dark evolutionary force of entropy that permeates all of nature and provides the drive for survival and propagation inherent in all living things". He also serves as a conceptual framework and an external metaphorical projection of [the Satanists] highest personal potential. Satan (Hebrew: שָּׂטָן satan, meaning "adversary") is seen as a symbol of defiance to the conservatism of mainstream philosophical and religious currents, mainly the Abrahamic religions, that see this character as their antithesis

[Surgenator]

I missed all the fun

[Pizza]

This is interesting, Seth interviews some Satanists. 

---

Not to turn internet diarrhea into something interesting or anything, but I think lack of belief is still a belief. And here's why...To lack a belief, you have to be unconvinced by the evidence.  In other words, you have to believe that the evidence is unconvincing.  Even though we do not believe in god, we do so because we believe the evidence is unconvincing.

Well, it's a belief about the evidence claims about god claims, not a believe about god claims. 
IMO, belief is a matter of degree and disbelief being the lower degree of trust that something is true like 0.5 or lower. So I get what you're saying.

[Cyberman]

Even if it might be said that not believing a claim is a belief that the evidence is unconvincing, it's still not a claim to belief. It's sort of the difference between failing to pay your taxes and actively refusing to make a payment. Or not being hungry as opposed to going on hunger strike.

[robvalue]

Yeah... it's kind of like saying you need an active brain going through the processes in order to collect and evaluate information, then come to a decision. This is kind of a given for any cognitive process. I don't think saying you have beliefs about your own beliefs or lack of beliefs makes any sense. Your brain has come to a decision about whether to accept a claim or not, that is the fact of the matter. It's not a matter of opinion, not even your own. The conclusion your brain has made is subjective to your brain, it is not making its own claim that this decision should be objectively held by other brains given the same information. So if you only "believe" the data is such that it has brought you to this conclusion, that sounds like doubting your own mental state.

You know what your beliefs are, assuming you're able to be honest with yourself and your mind is functioning properly. Your actions aren't informed by lacking a belief, it just means something has been suggested and you've rejected the claim.

Rejected, not claimed it was false, or believed it was false. Although you may also do that if it's a really stupid claim.

The idea that someone claiming something and you rejecting it leads to you acting differently makes no sense. Your position has remained the same as before you heard the claim.

"I've got a dragon in my garage!"
"I don't believe your claim is true."

Life goes on.

[Cyberman]

The courtroom analogy fits perfectly. Judging the defendant not guilty based on the lack of evidence doesn't necessitate that somebody else did it. That might follow but it's a completely separate case, which needs to be assessed on its own terms. We cannot say that just because Fred is found not guilty that means Barney must automatically be guilty, even if they are the only suspects. So a dismissal of such evidence as is presented is not a leap to the contrapositive.

[Alex K]

The courtroom analogy fits perfectly. Judging the defendant not guilty based on the lack of evidence doesn't necessitate that somebody else did it. That might follow but it's a completely separate case, which needs to be assessed on its own terms. We cannot say that just because Fred is found not guilty that means Barney must automatically be guilty, even if they are the only suspects. So a dismissal of such evidence as is presented is not a leap to the contrapositive.

I don't see the court room scenario working as a good comparison. There are four possibilities

1. I judge not guilty because of lacking evidence, and I think the guy didn't do it
2. I judge not guilty because of lacking evidence, but my gut tells me the guy did do it
3. I judge guilty because of evidence, and I think the guy did really do it
4. I judge guilty because of evidence, but my gut tells me the guy didn't do it and just got fucked by circumstances

How do these map to theism vs. atheism?

[Pizza]

@Rob, you can have beliefs about beliefs: "I believe that I believe X exist." "I believe Y, but I believe my belief is not based on Z."

---

Was this what you are trying to say?

[robvalue]

Sure, I suppose you can when you state it like that. I don't agree with the first one personally; surely you know you believe something, otherwise you're saying you don't actually know for sure what you believe. That is to declare yourself unreliable in every respect and/or worry about solipsism. Which are valid concerns, but hopefully ones we usually assume are false for sake of argument.

But I still think it's not necessary for a statement of belief to accompany the rejection of a claim.

Of course, you're going to have all sorts of other beliefs probably, such as beliefs about the personal making the claim, beliefs about how the claim could be modified so you'd believe it, beliefs about some of the evidence presented, and so on. But if I say I reject a claim, other than just saying my brain has done some work there, nothing more needs stating about beliefs.

That's my take on it. It's getting rather semantic really.

Yes very good video! It gets the point across nicely. I think even many atheists across the world are confused on this point.

---

Hey, that's a really good video actually. Thanks!

It demonstrates how atheism covers 2 of the 3 possible positions nicely as well as the lack of belief angle.

[Pizza]

"Sure, I suppose you can when you state it like that. I don't agree with the first one personally; surely you know you believe something, otherwise you're saying you don't actually know for sure what you believe."
I see no problem with that, since some issues are confusing. A person may be confused and not know what he or she believes.