I don’t think that’s entirely fair though. If I name my chess-club “The Rapist Society”, and choose a woman with a black-eye as my logo, I can’t attribute my lack of membership or positive reception to the close-mindedness of the masses. Well I mean, I can, if I get my jollies from persecution complexes.
This would only be a fair anology if
A) rape was percieved as being wrong where in actuallity nobody was being harmed by it (which of course is false)
B) If the label served to filter free thinkers that could separate preconception from reality from people that hold their preconceptions as undeniable truth (which a label refering to rape would not, as the definition of rape is very clear)
C) If Satanists proselitized, recruited, or otherwise endevoured to ‘swell the ranks’ which is actually quite the oposite of the truth.
D) If Satanism was designed or expected to garner acceptance or aproval from joe christian, which it obviously isn’t.
and
E) If the word rape had been perverted from it’s original context and anthropomorphisized into a into a quasi-deity-boogyman that commonly was used as a scapegoat for the problems of the masses.
Hey Dr S.
Well firstly, the definition of faith is not unjustified belief. From dictionary.com, faith means:
It is confident belief, not unjustifed. But anyway, using your definition…
Define unjustified. Exactly how much evidence is needed for a belief to become ‘justified’? Its quite a subjective, relative term really. Creationists will argue that the apparent fine tuning of the universe is evidence that gives them a justifiable cause to have faith in a creator. If we hark back to the ether example, its proponents would have felt justified to believe in its existence. Sound waves need a medium to travel through, why not EM waves?
Ok, so in order for a belief to be justified, emperical data is needed to support it. The great, undeniable, hard emperical data. Do you realise that many of the great theories have been developed without emperical data? Indeed, evidence and the current understanding of the world helps the theorist to direct his theory, but only after the theory has been made do the measurements begin to gather this data to test the theory’s validity. However, when the theorist makes his theory he has to have, by your definition, unjustified faith in it (i.e. no emperical evidence = unjustified faith).
If we look back at the first quote you claim that faith (faith being ‘unjustified’ belief) is counterproductive to progress on an individual level. This is a ridiculous notion. Imagine all the scientific advancements we would have missed out on if everyone shared this view. In order to advance, we have to have confidence in our ideas, but we can’t have absolute knowledge that they are correct. I would go as far to say that some faith is necessary for progress.
I do…nah, just kidding. After seeing movies like The Ninth Gate and The Devil’s Advocate, people can be confused about the existence of some being that can pretty much do ANYTHING he wants. When I say anything, I mean making any woman want to give you a blow job with just one smile from your lips.
Wouldn’t that be cool though? 
Too bad it’s not for real… 
Okay, the site was down for a long time, so this is a tardy response. Dr. S- I dunno if you’re a “good friend” of KD, so I’ll let that slide. He claims to be a worshipper of “The Dark One,” so I’ll let his words supercede mine. Yeah, he’s a showman, and obviously a marginal one, at least in America where incredibly great Death Metal like his is tragically undervalued. As for your statement about his solo stuff being better, I most agree, but M/F had some really brilliant stuff, and most of his solo stuff was a bit timid compared to his M/F stuff.
BTW, I see from re-reading my post (nearly a month ago) that it seemed a bit condescending: that was not my desire. I usually come across as flippant ( due to my understanding of the universe as a cosmic joke). No offense was meant, but your “modern satanism” still stikes me as a haven for ex-AD&D players. But hey, I loved D&D, so that’s not a bad thing. I’m just saying that you probably know that your “religion” is fabricated bullshit, but, like Catholicism, it probably helps you assign meaning to a world that lacks it.
Rock on, Garth! 
Sure my religion is fabricated.
All of them are.
What Satanism provides me with is a system of thought.
I feel a man possesing of a system of thought is more prepared to deal with the world than a man without one.
As for meaning, what I believe is that meaning is totally subjective, however Satanism does provide a framework which situates that idea quite snuggly.
I rather enjoy pointing out circular bullshit when I see it… And i see it!!!
Both christians and “satanists” it seems are two sides of the same coin…
I can’t believe you could be so blind as to fail to grasp your own closed worlds!!! WAKE UP!!!
I feel like the parent who’s driving the car while having to listen to the two kids bicker about pointless stuff in the back seat… SHUT UP!!! you’re driving me nuts with your meaningless prattle!! grow up already!
For those of you at home who havn’t noticed the obvious CRAP coming from both sides… I’d like to point it out.
conclusion… so shut up!
admit that the only ratonaly honest position one could take to is AGNOSTICISM!!!
all this claim of absolute certiainty is BULLSHIT!!!
Dr. S
please explain to me why your fabrication is any better then that of say a christian?
can you prove him wrong?
if not SHUT UP!
if so… then present proof of why god cannot exist… until then… SHUT UP
you are wasting everyone’s time… you are like a blind man claiming he sees more clearly then the rest of us… and now you want us all to poke our eyes out… we’d have to be IDIOTS to do so… believe whatever you like… but unless you can rationaly justify it… you ought to just… just… SHUT UP!
(sorry about the harsh tone… but a satanist surely wouldn’t mind… after all… YOU decide how you want to react to my post… right?)
Mad man.
Your ignorance knows no limit, and it is obvious you havent read anything in this thread aside from my last post.
I refuse to acomadate your laziness by reiterating everything I have already said. Every ‘question’ (read:ignorant assertion) you posed has already been answered, most of them more than once, in this very thread.
hehehe
YEAH baby!!! exercises that beast!!
and when you’re done… re-read my post… I was not asking any questions… I was pointing out how you are denying your own ignorence by criticising and dissmissing possibilities…
all the while… you are opposing faith from ignorance… and therfore equally irrational in all of your own conclusions… nothing can come from nothing… so how can you have knowledge without having faith?
At the moment you are a walking contradiction… your worldview is sloppy and undefined… and you are lashing out at “faith”
it seems you are trying to illustrate your point by re-defining the word “faith” to mean something else…
for example… Do you have “faith” in your own experiences?
if you say no… then you can’t rationaly claim to have knowledge at all…
if you say yes… then rationaly justify your “opposing faith” attitude…
define what constitutes “knowledge”… WITHOUT using “faith”
if you are not a fan of logic and reason… then i’m wasting my time with you… and you are a fruit-basket…
I don’t dismiss anything supported by evidence.
Let’s first define the term. I am speaking of faith as in, belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.(as defined by any dictionary) This is the context in which the word fits in with theism.
And in that sense, how can you have knowledge of a thing and also have faith in it? It would seem they are contradictory, wouldn’t you say? 
The only thing sloppy and undefined is your own comprehension of the subject material.
So far you have demonstrated very little propensity toward logical thinking. I doubt you would spot it if it were in front of your nose.
Dr. S
hehe… I could say the same about you… but unlike you… I will prove my point…
wow… that’s deep… I’m glad you thought to bring that up… as it is compleatly irrelevent…
you should really have see a pro about your selective memory problem… Here’s the definition of “faith”:
- Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
- Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
4.often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will. - The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
- A set of principles or beliefs.
take a GOOD look at 1 before leaping to 2…
no I wouldn’t… like i said… i would have to be a compleat idiot to listen to your absurde claims… You obviously want to redifine the word “faith” to mean something else… as in “an irrational belief” or some such thng… BUT IT’S NOT THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD “FAITH”… christians have FAITH in god… and if you say it is irrational… you mst prove that it is irratonal to believe that which they FEEL is true…
the exact same thing you seem to be doing with your “Whatever I experience is true” bullshit…
Truth REQUIRES faith… otherwise it cannot be known… I could smack you over the head with a baseball bat and if you did not have faith in your memory of how much it hurt the first time… you’d let me smack you in the head again!!! as there is no evidence that it hurts outside of a memory you don’t have any faith in…
but you have FAITH in your own experiences… therfore willing to announce them as “true”… Theists can’t help the fact that you seem to be ignorent (or in denial) of god’s existence… that doesn’t mean that they should stop believing… your arguments are weak and childish… your logic is contradictory… and you are standing on a pile of shit…
Now exercise YOU BRAIN instead of the beast for a second… and think about the pile of horseshit you’re trying to feed us…
P.S.
(seriously: don’t mind the insulting… i figured it would be more fun for the both of us to insult eachother… it just gives conversations that edge… I just like it better this way… 
… I really don’t think that poory of you… so don’t get all pissed off or anything… )
Hate to break it to you Mad Man P, but you’re wrong here when it comes to faith. Faith is not faith in God and Christians do not have faith in “God”. They have faith–rather trust–in their fellow man, specifically the ones who wrote the bible and the Roman Church that decided what to put in the Bible and what to exclude.
I do agree with you that agnosticism is the rational position to take, however religious faith is best defined as the second definition, though the first plays a part…
“1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.”
–This says nothing about believing in something because of evidence it merely says the person is confident in their belief. You can be as confident as you want that Pink Flying Elephants exist, that doesn’t make it a rational belief.
- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
–This definition best defines religious faith. Faith is merely trust in the Church, or the Mosque, etc. God did not write the Bible and Allah did not write the Koran, man wrote and composed both of them. Therefore their faith is in their fellow man.
Well it is good to see we are referencing the same dictionary. That is a good start.
I said I was going by the second given definition of ‘faith’ (belief without proof or evidence) simply because that is the definition that best suits religious faith. unless, of course, you are arguing you have evidence for the existence of a god or gods?
Regardless of that, even going by the first definition, as FtheNaysayers pointed out, does not lend any veracity to a claim; only the belief in a claim. There need be no authenticity to it. Anyone can have “Confident belief” in anything.
With that said:
Having read your post twice in its entirety I fail to see how you have done that.
No it isn’t. You said:
To which I replied:
Quite relevant to your comment, I’d say.
So by my using a dictionary definition of the word faith I am somehow inventing my own definition. How absurd.
Hmm
1: reasoning is much different than interpreting a warm fuzzy feeling.
2:Sanity is not having imaginary friends.
3:Rational and evidence tells us emotions are caused by physical biochemical reactions. It is not rational to interpret this as something mystical.
4: non-aplicable
I don’t need to ‘prove’ faith(belief through feeling) is irational, the dictionary can do that.
Pure bullshit. I know I exist. I don’t need faith to justify that, because I have evidence to back up that claim, which I can produce and verify.
How do you know that? Can you see into my mind?
Most material evidence that touches on various types of theology tends to take away from the credibility of theology, not add to it.
For instance. it can be easily shown that the jesus myth is born from mithras worship (Constantine was a follower of mithras, and nicea was his project) as well as other god man myths.(Horus, Krishna, Buddha, the list goes on…) That on top of the void that exists where a mountain of physical evidence and records would if the jesus myth were true, leads any rational person to discard it as mythology.
Just one example of many…
And to counter I acuse you of being in denial of the toothfairy.
You have yet to demonstrate a capacity to express or recognise logic, and in fact I highly doubt you understand what logic is. Go read and learn how to think.
infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Hi FtheNaysayers
I apritiate the thoughtful response… and now to answer it.
I believe this to be an inaccurate account of theistic belief… we have all experienced the feeling “love” (I hope)… but why do we trust others have had this experience of feeling “love”?
we have all experienced the sensation of “burning” but why do we trust that “heat” was the cause?
in my experience… most rational theists place a trust in “god” and NOT what you are trying to portray… it’s true that this FAITH in god stems from reading scripture, which may or may not be human fabrication, BUT this is not enough!! there must be a revilation… this revilation then directly justifies a FAITH in that which was revealed to be the word of god… it’s an experience CAUSED by god and his “word”… and this is where the theist’s faith is placed… in experiencing god first hand, and knowing “god” via scripture.
this of course is circular reasoning… and very much a closed world-view… however this does not render it an unsound argument… nor nessisarily invalid… so theism is indeed a rational belief… NOT devoid of logic and experience…
“satanism” otoh is a joke… as it has no empirical justification of the very logic it is employing in it’s attempts to justify itself… it’s basicly solipsism… with a new name… and filled to the brim with “unjustified beliefs” in things existing outside of one-self…
Naturally one who is an agnostic could claim that absolute certainty is impossible … but then again… the argument would be self-refuting… so reason is lost… and chaos and unintelligibility remains…
I suggest a positive agnosticism… such as an agnostic-pantheist mixture… this covers all possible bases… and leaves nothing out…
Dr. S
YOU ARE USING THE WRONG DEFINITION TO DESCRIBE THEISTIC FAITH!!!
sigh… i suppose i must speak as a child to be understood by a child… is sight an experienced sensation? are “feelings” experienced sensations or not?
if an experience is not empirical evidence of itself… then i doubt you can have any knowledge at all… and if you do not have “faith” in the soundness of your own observations… then how can you rationaly justify ANYTHING?
I’m not denying the possibility of a toothfairy!!! that would be stupid… but i am not claiming that there is such a thing either… as I honestly have no reason to make such a claim…
really? do you believe this to be true? do you have FAITH in this statement?
does it really?
did you actually dicover these things on your own? or are you accepting this information because you have FAITH in the scientists who have uncovered these things?
Am I supposed to accept your assertions on nothing but FAITH then??
there are no givens in philosophy… get a clue… 
when you’re done allowing your “faith” in the non-existence of a “theistic” god bias everything to confirm what you would like it to… then I’ll consider you an enlightened person… until then… you reek of the shit in which you stand!
A joke is believing in zombies on sticks and all knowing sky-daddies.
Anyway…
Logic and reason(deductive reasoning), as well as evidential support of an idea (inductive reasoning) are what intelligent people use to fathom and understand our universe. To claim logic needs emperical justification to operate demonstrates once again your ignorance of what logic actually is.
And it would seem you don’t know what solipsism is either. Solipsism is the belief that you are the only thing real in the universe, and everything else is a figment of your imagination. This is actually listed as one of the cardinal sins of Satanism, and for you to say they are one and the same yet again demonstrates your ignorance.
You are very good at being ignorant, shame it doesnt pay
And furthermore,
Please, give me just one example of an ‘unjustified belief’ that Satanism is apparently filled to the brim with. Shouldn’t be too hard, right?
Dr. S
LOGIC IS “SYSTEM”… consistent order… there are different kinds of logic… different systems…
before you place FAITH in logic… you need to justify WHY logic is a valid method of discovering “truth”… why do you suppose order above randomness?
IF intelligibility is assumed then you must justify this assumption!!!
IF it is not… well then you understand nothing… and I rest my case
I know perfectly well what solipsism is… it seems that you are being either willfully ignorent of your own position… or else are genuinely unaware of your own position (which wouldn’t surprise me at this point)
here’s one: Dr. S’ spills the beans!
Let’s take a closer look shall we?
-
“I believe that I am NOT the only thing real in the universe… therfore I am not a solipsist”
-
“I only believe in the things supported by evidence”
-
"I oppose ‘faith’ "
2 and 3 make a solipsist… as the only thing you can know via opservable evidence is that YOU exist (in SOME way, shape or form)… and without FAITH/TRUST in your own observation’s capability of yielding true knowledge… you are reduced to ONLY believing THAT you are observing what you irrationaly believe/trust to be “real”…
- requires FAITH/TRUST… you have no rational justification for 1 given 3… you are contradicting yourself… and therfore reek of shit…
You cannot oppose faith… yet claim to have knowledge!!! again… NOTHING is given in philosophy… if you do not place FAITH in your knowledge then you have no reason to BELIEVE that you have ANY true knowledge!!!
it’s all a fiction of your imagination for all you know… solipsism
believing anything besides you(the ego) is real will require a leap of faith… which you oppose… so good luck trying to justify it…
I simply do not share your wacky death cult idea that faith is inherant to all knowledge. You have yet to justify how this is, other than ‘because you say so’
I have already clarified many times which type of ‘faith’ I am oposed to, yet you keep attacking a strawman and insist I am doing the same: yet you are unable to clarify how your faith is not ‘belief without evidence’
And save the epistimological apoligism for the lesser minds, it just doesn’t fly.
I don’t buy into ‘we can’t really know anything other than that we exist’ because that is a stupid position. We can emperically validate the existance of things outside ourselfs, quite easily. Can you say the same of your sky-daddy?
The fact that you refuse to admit faith is believing without or in spite of evidence, and the fact that you place the value of subjective personal experience on the same level as inductive/deductive reasoning as a valid means of 'understanding things makes you delusional and out of touch with reality.
Well, there is certainly one very ignorant person in this conversation (as I have so kindly pointed out in several instances, and their specifics)
Again, you don’t need to have ‘faith’ to know something. Faith implies you don’t know but pretend you do anyway. This is stupid and counterproductive behavior, that won’t bet you any real answers. (as you think you already have them) How do we know the difference between bunk and good information, you might ask? Evidence. And no, by evidence I do not mean ‘a warm fuzzy feeling you got at church’
And for the record, I do not accept that faith and trust are mutually exclusive, or that all knowing requires faith. I’ve seen the argument before at length and it just doesnt hold up, and is obviously a weak attempt at appologetics.
Dr. S
do you “believe/have faith” in a REAL physicle world existing outside of your own imagination?
Do you “believe/have faith/trust” that your senses are revealing the “real” world to you?
really?.. How so?
through FAITH in our senses and observations, maybe?
I do not have a sky-daddy… I don’t even know what a sky-daddy is!!
(I am not a “theist” as such… I am an agnostic-panthiest)
these are the very things I am accusing you of… and now you’re trying to turn them back on me??? that’s just stupid… If you cannot defend your position… admit it!
FAITH is placed in evidence… otherwise we would not consider it “evidence”…
I agree that Faith is pretending you know something when you do not… Therfore it is absolutely nessisary (in order to avoid solipsism or nihilism) to “pretend you know” that there is a world outside of your own imagination… when in fact… you couldn’t possibly KNOW such a thing…
I couldn’t care less WHAT you would accept… as you have aptly demonstrated your own irrationality… your subjective opinions are without value to me… present an argument or admit ignorence…
Science.
Theists who do not indentify with a specific religion are a whole different bread than Christian Theists, Muslim Theists, Jewish Theists, etc.
Someone who has faith in a specific god puts their trust in man, specifically the organizers of the said religion.
May be? 
Heh I think we (the honest ones) can all agree scripture is man-made.
You’re right it is circular reasoning…
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, thus it is an unsound argument and irrational.
Maybe for you, but in my opinion one cannot be an agnostic-pantheist. You’re either an agnostic or not and a pantheist is just a version of a theist.