lol
well i guess it does make sense that you are scared of me- i see through all atheism including your little sub group of atheism here called satanism…i ask questions that define you and your flawed logic. you sense that and are not going to take a bite- good idea scared man…you wont learn anything but what you already know with that route, though im sure you feel your learning has reached its peak…im actually kinda disapointed with your scared attempt to even respond to me (you would have been better off saying nothing- now i know just how weak you really are)…like i said disapointing- no challenge- no competition- i laugh in the face of competition (atheism) 
God bless
-hth
Violation of Religion Rule 1.
One Warning Issued
-TheStumps
lol…wow.
ANYWAY. Still open to serious questions. Crazy people can play too, just eat your damn pills first 
lol
Okay, so what’s the deal with the avatar? I mean, you’ve got a guy with horns coming out of his head. First off, that doesn’t seem healthy. Nor is it very attractive. Do the horns symbolize something? Is it a satan thing? Or are you just perpetually horny (hey, join the club! You mean there’s a religion for us??) Plus, he has an expression on his face like he’s trying to pass a kidney stone. What’s up with that?
Smirk wants to know.
To be honest the difference is one of semantics but hey whatever floats your barge.
You don’t even have the first idea what logic is HtH seriously.
The irony of HtH claiming that Satanisms ideas are hard to understand is not lost on me, no one has the first clue what you are on about 100% of the time, nor the reason for your delusions of grandeur and subsequent religious nonsense.
Love=truth=God exists=I am a genius
I am so brilliant I proved Gods exists!12311112342323123232312311111111111oone
And this drivel is more rational than believing in evolution and instinct?
Seriously dude you are the one that needs medication.
Violation of Religion Rule 1.
One Warning Issued
-TheStumps
Thread locked temporarily.
People need some chill time to space out their mind from their fingers.
Thread reopened.
Satanism is another “ism”, like Buddhism, Christianism, Judaism. Though you do not worship the devil or Satan, to be correct, the ism makes me believe that you do “worship” something nonetheless and in this “loyalty” if you will, you prove yourself worthy of the brotherhood you share with all believers. “Faith based” is always the root of belief. Satanism is not merely “defined”, it is the “belief” in such and such. The details do not matter, whether top down or down up.
But here is my question to the Satanist:
Why do you need to be one at all? What do you find in the label which would be missing otherwise?
I see that you already answered that:
“It wasn’t so much of a leap of faith as it was a process of recognizing myself in the words of LaVey, and later the foundational material behind those words. As it was a reflection of how I already thought, it was more of a crystallization than a shift of gears. An avenue to pursue how I already thought, and a description of how I already lived. Taking the label was more of a matter of self honesty than anything else.”
O- In those “top-down” systems, don’t you think that it is this, rather than slavish submission that leads to their belief in those theistic systems? I mean, couldn’t it be that a Christian for example, came to the realization that Jesus was the truth and God because he or she also recognized, after reading or being told, that this is what they had been thinking all along? The Christian morals merely a description of how they already lived or thought that they aimed to live?
Religions, one or another X-ism, appeal, just like Satanism, so in a way, they ARE down up systems. The follower of Allah is the lord of other men. How much self affirmation would you need besides that? The means might be different, but isn’t it possible that the end is the same?
Hey Painful T.
You replied this to Dr Satanical. Mind you, I am not saying that I agree with him, but his position has merit. For example, you responded to him:
— I define evil as immoral acts, specifically the violation by any sentient being of the rights of another sentient being to their life, liberty and property through force or fraud. (All else is individually determined virtue.)
O- You’re absolutely right: YOU define, thus, yet another individually determined virtue. Why? because what is a “violation”, what constitutes a right, force and fraud, are subjective interpretations and not objective facts. Thus our adversarial Justice System.
— How so, given that the Devil, our temptation to misuse force or deception, is an onerous example of a liar and deceiver?
O- This is a calumny about Satan. In the Genesis story, where several ideas about Satan have emerged, Satan is the vessel of truth. He states the truth. God on the other hand is the one who was not forthcoming with the facts that Satan reveals; perhaps for the benefit of the created couple. Doesn’t matter. Even in Job he speaks the truth. His role is not onerous, nor to deceive or to lie. He is the Accuser.
— Unbiased, objective reason defines it as I’ve done above–based on the assumption that life is of value and sentient life is of ultimate value.
O- “Unbiased” is a biased judgment. You cannot escape bias. Other than analytical statements, like 2+2=4, all other statements about matter of objective facts, synthetic statements in Hume’s philosophy, require subjective judgments.
— “Primary”? You missed what I said (intentionally?). We carry our own weight, and look out for #1…among our fellow creatures with the same/equal rights as ours.
O- His point is worth considering. Sure we carry or own weight but also like others to carry it for us. the history of humanity is tinted by provisions against free-loaders. You could argue that our selfishness is more fundamental, even instinctual, and so it colors for our “reason” who is the “same or equal” and who therefore, as extensions of ourselves, is conceded thesame rights we demand ourselves. There is a saying that we have the capacity to love everyone…so long as there are enough people left to hate. We have “fellow” creatures by the constrast provided by those one would call “enemy”.
Morality is objective, universal, and equally applicable to all. The objective is good order. The only ones who reject good order are tyrants and anarchists (the one’s who just want to watch the world burn); and given your moniker along with your “morality is subjective”, you’d be one of the latter. The anarchist’s evil is fraudulence in plain sight.
Yes, I have to say I define it that way, but only because the definition of morality has been so bastardized over the eons with all the illegitimate items the religions have thrown in to be included under that name. I’ve simply reduced it to its objective core which is all that morality can be. Our adversarial judicial system does not exist because we don’t know what constitutes force or fraud, they are well defined. Rather, it exists because people use force or fraud, rationalizing to themselves that morality is relative, “it’s moral if I do it”, yet they lie about it. Why, if they’re moral?
Satan in the Garden of Eden, didn’t tempt them to commit evil by eating of the forbidden fruit–their self-awareness came naturally. His evil was, and has always been, to rationalize the superiority of our worth, that our vanity is justified. But the Devil doesn’t exist even if God does. He’s merely a metaphor for those rationalizations we use to justify the violation of the rights of others–to endow ourselves with the benefit of a double standard.
Hey Painful T.
— Our adversarial judicial system does not exist because we don’t know what constitutes force or fraud, they are well defined.
O- Sure. But instances of them are interpreted to fit the definition. For example a man may kill another and is found guilty of “murder”. Then the state kills him but THAT is not seen as a “muder”. There is a “legitimacy” involved which is not objective. For example, the man convicted of murder probably himself did not see what he did as unjustified, illegitimate, in short a naked murder, but felt justified.
We can agree that there are rules that regulate so serious a deed as taking another person’s life, but we cannot agree that such rules are unanimously one and the same. “Right” and “Wrong” are categorical imperatives, but what populates these fields of meaning is arbitrary instead of universal. See such issues as abortions or same sex marriages.
— Rather, it exists because people use force or fraud, rationalizing to themselves that morality is relative, “it’s moral if I do it”, yet they lie about it. Why, if they’re moral?
O- No. Our adversarial system exist because we hold on to the idea that a person acts reasonably. And his or her reason is measured against the Spirit of the Law. “Murder” can be easily defined by the Letter of the Law, but not by the Spirit of the Law. The Spirit of the Law lives in all of us. It is in our hearts. thus, the accussed in judged by his peers, who hold the Spirit of the Law. In such cases where the man had a reason to kill another man, in his mind, even if against the letter of the law, if found innocent by his peers, then that means that he acted in accordance with the Spirit of his age, his society, the Spirit of the Law. Between the Letter and the Spirit there is no necessary equivalence. The Letter does try to follow the Spirit, where the Spirit leads. the adversarial system makes sure that it is the Spirit that leads the Law and not merely the unorganic, unflexible, Letter.
— Satan in the Garden of Eden, didn’t tempt them to commit evil by eating of the forbidden fruit–their self-awareness came naturally. His evil was, and has always been, to rationalize the superiority of our worth, that our vanity is justified.
O- I believe you’re reading too much into the story. God said that they shall surely die, initially. Satan says that they won’t surely die, but that another effect, that they shall come to know good and evil, just like God, rather than dying, is what will happen. They eat. They do not die. Not only that but they were not supposed to die. It was just what God said wold happen. But the God confirms that what Satan said would happen was always the effect of the fruit, and this is what happened and what God laments, and what God wanted to protect us from. God lied…a white lie, yes, but a lie nonetheless, a useful illusion, a lie. Satan only delivered the truth.
— But the Devil doesn’t exist even if God does. He’s merely a metaphor for those rationalizations we use to justify the violation of the rights of others–to endow ourselves with the benefit of a double standard.
O- Sure. I mean only the literary character of Satan. I am not arguing that Satan is somthing that exists.
i understand satanists practice magic. what kind? what is it like? etc?
=D> way to misinterpret what he said and use it to post a premade argument. so satanism is being the anti-theisis. i get it. but why not try to be the synthesis?
what exactly do you mean by satanism being bottom-up? (incedentally the last part of what you said strikes a chord of something pretty important to me)
ew…the last part of that post is exactly what i expect a satanist to say. calm the fuck down, you’re no one (and i bet you got that from somewhere)
satanism is nothing like nihilism…at all. morality says we are all the center of the earth, nihilism says there is no center, satanism (and logic, really) says that you are the center.
you can say morality is made by “satanists” (in spirit). any smart person would person would want to make a universal code morality that is generous and giving in nature. get everyone pushing while you pull.
anyways i’m pretty desperate to join something. athiests are better than thiests in that they don’t let their life revolve around bullshit but they replace it with an unconscious living. things like the church of satan replace that void of religion and implore you to live more consciously. satanism in particular preaches to live more consciously for yourself
not to mention it’s a place to start recruitment 
Valid question. I define magic, at its core, as manifesting an altered perspective. Ritual, through catharsis, is psychodrama aimed at manifesting real life results through an alteration in ones own ‘weltanschauung’. Personally, I don’t find much value in ritual, but that is the general theory behind Satanic magic.
Interesting. First, a belief is anything you hold to be true. Not all beliefs need be based on faith.(note - belief without evidence, not trust…lets avoid equivocation) Religious systems that hold concepts such as deity, or other unprovables as core are bound by faith, but I don’t think that is really true of Satanism. Satanism is inherently autotheistic, meaning it is recognized within Satanism that god concepts are manufactured internally. The only brotherhood is of one, the only loyalty to the self and the empowerment of same.
As to your closing question, I find the label to be accurate, so I use it. Satanism isn’t prescriptive, it is descriptive. A tree would still exist if there was no word for it, but it would be difficult to describe to others.
Apologies for the multiple replies, there is a lot to go through.
Sure. I personally think some are wired to believe, and others lack that wiring. Looking around the earth, it seems every group of humans to form a society creates a religious system, and most of them are Right Hand Path(tantra), or spiritually based. The goal to dissolve the self into the one, whether it be god(s), society or the cosmos. The self is secondary to something ‘universally’ greater. Yes, I do think most are inclined to see the world in this way. Satanism certainly isn’t for everybody.
By top down/bottom up I mean an empowerment of ‘world pole’ vs an empowerment of ‘self pole’. The distinction lies in whether divinity is internalized, or externalized.
This should also answer usupers question