So basically you believe some deity might exist because you can't prove that he does not exist?

somewhere in that big black universe there might a little pink elephant with blue wings and a dick the size of planet Jupiter. There is just as much sense in believing in that as there is in believing that there might be some deity floating around somewhere...

That is however, entirely my own opinion, and you are ofcourse entitled to your own thoughts on this matter, I however believe Humanity, as well as life in general to be a freak accident of nature, heck even nature is a freak accident of nature if you ask me.

Life is full of beautiful little ironies like that... if you can't take the joke however, I suppose it would be a lot more convenient to keep pulling splinters out of your backside

Hm, unless you never been surprised in your life, or found something that you thought was otherwise, then yes, I do leave a chance in my head for a small pink elephant with wings.

Check the tab on the topic this thread is listed under. It says GENERAL SATANISM. If you wish to debate semantics of various other beliefs, I'm sure you can find ANOTHER message board elsewhere.

You tread dangerously across the path to ignorance, friend. That's just like saying that you are 100% sure that your computer does not have a virus or has not been hacked, even if you've been logged onto the internet on a cable modem with no firewall up for the last month and you haven't done a virus scan, nor updated your virus definitions in the last year. There's a possibility of either It is, or it isn't.

In mathematics, the true opposite of a number is not a number. True Opposite of 4 is not 4. True opposite of Christianity is not Christianity. The true opposite of infinity, however, is zero. Null, neutrality, i.e. the Fence. Satanism IS the fence, but you brought a trampoline with ya from the yard and leapt over it, right into Jesus' stupid kiddy pool.

Who said I'm not debating Satanism? Maybe I'm challenging his understanding of Satanism... Why am I sensing this tention that many of you think I should just shut up and follow the book? What's so damn rebellious about that? Why do people say either accept it or get out? Is it not a live philosophy, that is open to expansion in todays world? Is it just another "dead" religion that is written and should be followed without questions. LaVey was a great man and put forward wise and revolutionary ideas, but if you just repeat them where does that put you? Should you not take those ideas and expand on them, or at least see if they can be expanded? Should you not imploy them in your everyday life, in every post you make, in every breath of your life? Shouldn't these ideas be reflected by your actions, instead of living a life of a hypocrate? Or is it just easier to take something and accept it as true, something that begins to sound like another book out there which most of you claim to hate...

Satanism IS the fence, but you brought a trampoline with ya from the yard and leapt over it, right into Jesus' stupid kiddy pool.

Oh did I now? Because I disagreed with you? Rubbish!

What I am saying is that if Satanism is the opposite of all white-light stupidities that advocate the existance of an omnipotent anthropomorphic deity, then wouldn't making a point of NOT BELIEVING in such ignorant cave dwelling, goat herding, IGNORANCE to be the opposite behavior? You seem to lack the courage to face the reality of your existence, by realizing that such supercilious nonsense is merely a compilation of "stupid human tricks" devoid of any common sense whatsoever. (Don't give me the double talk of your mathematical musings.) And as for you not deciding one way or the other, that is YOUR perrogative, not mine, as I choose the path that makes the most logical sense to ME, rather than lacking the cahones to come to that realization out of fear of losing my "safety net" of ambiguity in the process. If someone is more comfortable with Agnosticism that is fine, but they shouldn't make it sound like they are far more "enlightened" than the Atheist, (Or the Satanist) that does not believe in fairytale dieties, because the Agnostic is AFRAID to commit to anything in this regard one way or the other. BELIEFS in "deity-like entities", as you obliquely stated, are merely sops to an impoverished ego that cannot be accepted as purely carnal, and thereby the need for externalization results, so up pops a "god" to make it all "better".

"The Satanist realizes that man, and the action and reaction of the Universe, is responsible for everything, and doesn't mislead himself into thinking someone (read god) cares." Anton Szandor LaVey, TSB, pg. 41

"If he hates himself, he searches out new and more complex spiritual paths of "enlightenment" in hopes he may split himself up again in his quest for stronger and more externalized "gods" to scourge his poor miserable shell." Anton Szandor LaVey, TSB, pg.45

Anyhow, to answer the question, I am agnostic, because the possiblity of a deity-like entity existing is still there, and until it is proven or disproven, I shall forever remain on the fence.

How do you see Satanism as being the "fence" as you say? The fence I am speaking of is the position of neutrality afforded to the Agnostic that you so proudly perch upon. At least I respect Christians for being consistent in their insipid belief system, as hypocritical as they may be.

If there is a "god", he/she/it would be far too impersonal to give a flying gargoyle's ass, about a insignificant lump of flesh, infesting the tiny ball of rock and dirt, we call Earth, so the point is MOOT anyway. So dwell upon unlikely possibilities all you wish. Just because there is a miniscule "possibility" that I am lurking in the bushes to defecate upon your birthday cake, doesn't mean you have to be paranoid about it, or even give it any thought. It probably isn't going to occur, but you don't KNOW I am not out there with my pants pulled down, just waiting to "frost" your cake right? And until you can prove otherwise, you had better keep it covered, just in case!

You are VERY insecure my "friend".

"If God isn't dead, He'd better have Medicare!"
Guess who said that?

Oh yeah...one more thing. Did your mother have any children, or were they all puppies? (Just curious.)

By shutting yourself out (i.e. Atheism), you render yourself unable to justify the logic in your actions should you be proven wrong.

You should examine your statement a little better. You have rendered yourself unable to justify logic by your own statement. You are agnostic, therefore you have made a choice and are biased in opinion...and not in alignment with Satanism. So since you believe in something that you cannot prove makes you a rebel with a safety net. We do not believe in safety nets, because we have the courage to live life on our own terms...not in case that someone elses might be true.

Anyhow, to answer the question, I am agnostic, because the possiblity of a deity-like entity existing is still there, and until it is proven or disproven, I shall forever remain on the fence.

Those that believe in a deity carry the burden of proof of existence of said being...not the other way around. That also makes you a lapdog to someone elses god. Good luck with that.

Not wanting to get caught inbetween the two of you, I will refrain from replying on the actual topic at this time. However, I have to comment on one thing...

Quote:

---

Oh yeah...one more thing. Did your mother have any children, or were they all puppies? (Just curious.)

---

That's a pretty damn good insult! I'll have to remember to use that one in the future.

If something is concievable, it is possible. Once a possibility has been defined, we work out the probability.

EG:
It is Possible that the Church of Satan are really christians.
It is probable that they are not.
The option that has more probability than the rest, is the option we stick with.
Therefore: The Church of Satan is most probably NOT a christain group.
Just like Q: Is satanism for me?
How do you find a probable option? A: By furthering your knowledge on the issue.
Or, Q: Once a satanist, is the Church of Satan for me?
A: See above.

Anton seems to encourage doubt and skepticism. You approach a situation (the existance og GOD say) with doubt. And even when, or even if you have arrived at a descision, you must still leave room for the possibility of being wrong.
He even said once that If god existed, he'd not be concerned with humanity. By saying those words, he is proving that he leaves a possibility. Even if the probability factor is is very low.

If anyone has information about the Dr and his words, and can disprove me, please do. Again, I do not know everything about satanism etc yet.
Thank you.

You tread dangerously across the path to ignorance, friend.

True ignorance is believing that something might be true with no proof. Safety nets are for cowards and lapdogs.

As I suggested before, would you please not call the founder of our religion by his forename.
I hate this lack of respect!

You said you were agnostic. What happened to your fence sitting? You believe that there is a deity, yet would deny that deity upon finding proof of that deity? BULLSHIT!!! You do not operate upon logic, you operate by safety nets. You would bow before Jesus quicker than bin Laden.

No, he's just using his brain. What you're suggesting BastardChild, is totally ignorant.

Fuck YOU little boy!

As was mentioned by someone else's reply, the true path most often is in the middle, and the middle of picking a side is not picking either!

BULLSHIT! Let's see...inaction of thought equals the Satanic third side eh? Well then get a lobotomy and you will forever be on the "true path". Not picking either "side" in an issue is an option, but not the only option, AS IT DEPENDS UPON THE CONTEXT OF THE ISSUE, doesn't it? I know, because you are incapable of making a decision that might embarrass you if you are found out to be wrong, it is much safer to claim you are SO fucking intelligent, because you refuse to take sides in any issue, even though there may be a very logical choice to be made, depending upon the context of the issue. While it is true that many of the positions that are polarized to induce conflict are both illogically sound arguements on both sides of the equation, it ain't ALWAYS that way. If I were you, I would never take sides with any issue, because there is a possibility, no matter how MINISCULE, that you could be wrong. Be afraid, be very afraid, or you might have to eat crow and modify your position, and that just wouldn't be acceptable to your pathetic little ego would it? You might have to shudder admit to being wrong. And we can't have that because you obviously already know everything simply by refusing to analyse the data at all, escaping the harrowing decision making process that might put egg on your face...

You can go away any time.

Anton seems to encourage doubt and skepticism. You approach a situation (the existance og GOD say) with doubt. And even when, or even if you have arrived at a descision, you must still leave room for the possibility of being wrong.

AHEM! That's DOCTOR LaVey to you sir! I believe he made that statement to illustrate the fact that such a minute possibilty is moot anyway, not to leave open that such a possibilty exists, to demonstrate the futility of such foolishness. Perhaps it is wise to consider the possibilty of being full of bat droppings from time to time, but not to the point of being so insecure that you are afraid to logically make choices when necessary to do so, that is just being a chicken shit fence sitter whose brother is named Spot!