Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#12762 - 09/27/03 08:36 PM Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Anonymous
Unregistered


I am interested in what most of you believe in when it comes to the Judeo/Xianized view of 'GOD'.
As in, do you remain Agtnostic about the issue ("He MIGHT exist"), or Athiest (He DOESN"T exist").
I'm interested in WHY you believe what you do. The facts you have read/heard that have helped you decide on your belief.
I would advise you re-think your beliefs if they center around 'faith' . A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.


And a question to official Church of Satan members:
Sure, satanism is a belief, and the Church of Satan is an organization. Now my question is, why belong to the church?
People (mainly xians) go to church for the same reasons they go to a hotel/bar: to stupefy themselves, to forget their misery, to imagine themselves, for a few minutes anyway, free and happy.
How is it different for you?

Top
#12763 - 09/27/03 08:42 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Taliana Offline


Registered: 02/08/03
Posts: 1217
Loc: England
Maybe he exists, maybe he doesn't. I don't really care.

And I'm not a CoS Member, but my understanding is that people generally join because they want to support the CoS, and there are a lot more opportunies when you've got that redcard. I'm sure there are more reasons too, but those seem to be the most common that I've come across.

Top
#12764 - 09/27/03 08:43 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Please note, I am not trying to offend anyone. If you take offense, or feel threatened by anything I have to say, then it is your fault.
Thank you.
-MrA.

Top
#12765 - 09/27/03 08:53 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Blackheart Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 389
Loc: England
I am 100% sure the Christian God does not exist, simply because I do not think Christians have a remotely accurate view of the nature of the Universe.
If the Christian God does exist, then the Universe is a more fucked up place than I had thought.

Other gods do exist. I am one of them

I joined the Church of Satan because I wanted to put my money were my mouth was, and to make a commitment to the religion. Another important part of it was simply wanting to acknowledge the organisation who made me realise what I really am.

Anyway, if nobody joined, there wouldn't be a Church of Satan, and the world would be a more boring place as a result.

Bunny

Top
#12766 - 09/27/03 08:56 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Taliana]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:

Maybe he exists, maybe he doesn't. I don't really care.



Hmm. Apathetic-Agnostic. "Don't know and don't care!". Hehe. You sure you aren't a member of this place? : http://apatheticagnostic.com/
You say there are more opportunities that would arise once joined? I can see the benifit on an egotistical level, but as far as anything else, it would have to be a love for a sense of community with other satanists, or something.
Thank you for the reply.

Top
#12767 - 09/27/03 09:04 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Blackheart]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Evilbunny:
So you are saying that "God does not exist because his followers are retarded in thier thinking"?
What I found intersting, is that you said 'There are many gods, I am one of them". From what I can understand, satanism teaches "There is no God other than yourself". But, I am unsure of this.
Do you view other satanists as fellow gods? As in, do you show them respect,a nd put them higher than you because you deem them to be a 'God"?

A commitment to the 'religion' by joing and organisation that practices satanism. Interesting.
Thanks.

Top
#12768 - 09/27/03 09:14 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Blackheart Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 389
Loc: England
Quote:

So you are saying that "God does not exist because his followers are retarded in thier thinking"?




Sort of. I do not merely mean I think Christianity is wrong because Christians are stupid - that would be illogical since even stupid people are sometimes right. I simply meant that the Christian view of the Universe is not my view. All arguments for the existence of God are farcical.

I won't get too deep into this because this is a Satanic forum, not a Christian one.

Quote:

What I found intersting, is that you said 'There are many gods, I am one of them". From what I can understand, satanism teaches "There is no God other than yourself". But, I am unsure of this.
Do you view other satanists as fellow gods? As in, do you show them respect,a nd put them higher than you because you deem them to be a 'God"?




All Satanists are gods in their own lives.
Interaction with other Satanists is a matter of mutual respect.
But as any student of classical mythology knows, when two gods meet, there can be big fights

Top
#12770 - 09/27/03 09:16 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
OneMadFool Offline


Registered: 03/09/03
Posts: 209
Loc: Pennsylvainia
As far a talking about "beliefs" you might what to read This for some Satanic views on beliefs.

Personally, I know there is no GOD, in the Christian sense of the word. Are there GOD's? Of course, I AM ONE.

I am currently not a memeber of the COS, but I will be sending my application within the next few weeks. I do not join in the hopes of "becoming one of the herd". I join to show my support and thankfulness that and outstanding organization like the COS exists. I also join to show my gratitude that Anton LaVey had the guile and the set of balls to write TSB, and begin a revolution in thinking and and evolution to modern Satanism.
_________________________
Sometimes it's good to burn your bridges...it keeps the idiots who can't swim from following you.

Top
#12771 - 09/27/03 09:17 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Wonka Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 11/02/02
Posts: 638
Loc: The City of Red Lights
No Satanist with a thirst of knowledge and progress can be a true Athiest.

The key element, doubt, should always be present. I have no reason to think a creature fitting the Judeo-Christian concept of God exists. If something presents itself as evidence towards the theory of God, I will look into it if it interests me.

The existence of such a creature has made no visible impact in my life, so whether or not he exists is not a factor in my life. Thus, he is not worthy of my attention. Satanism is a religion of practicality, not of belief or idle thoughts of no importance (unless one gains pleasure from them). The only exception to beliefs, is in the ritual chamber, and even suspending disbelief serves a practical purpose.

Quote:

And a question to official Church of Satan members:
Sure, satanism is a belief, and the Church of Satan is an organization. Now my question is, why belong to the church?
People (mainly xians) go to church for the same reasons they go to a hotel/bar: to stupefy themselves, to forget their misery, to imagine themselves, for a few minutes anyway, free and happy.
How is it different for you?




First off, there is no Church of Satan to visit.

The only thing similar to a church is our Grotto system, which is reserved to Active Members who wish to gain power, knowledge, or pleasure from interacting with specific types of individuals. Most Members do not belong to Grottos.There is also the Church of Satan's Special Interest Groups.

More information about Grottos, SIGs, and Membership in general can be found here.

A Christian church is nothing more then a building, it's the beliefs taught inside that make it an escape into a bland, monotonous existence. The philosophy behind The Satanic Bible demands the opposite: individuality and self progression.

So why would one want to join the Church of Satan, when the religion's banner is nonconformity? To support the only organization that ensures it longevity by providing a source untainted by pop culture. To aid the organization in its plans and efforts. To meet and work with other individuals, sharing the same world view, who may be useful to you in some form or another. There is also a certain pride behind it, as well.

Hopefully this has answered your questions.


Edited by LKRice (09/28/03 05:46 AM)
_________________________
Believe Nothing. Test Everything.

Top
#12772 - 09/27/03 09:24 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Anonymous
Unregistered


From my understanding of satanism, people who follow this religion if you want to call it that (although i personally prefer term school of thought), see the most important entity in the unvierse is themselves. They do not worship each other, yet if the other person claiming to be a satanist and can live up to the title, they are shown fundamental respect they deserve. The universe pretty much revolves around one self, because one's life is unique and the most important asset of a satanist. Satanist believes that he is in control of his life, and he has the ability and willpower to steer his life in the direction of his chousing, instead of kicking back and relying on faith like many other religions tell you to do. That is why each Satanist views himself as a "God". Rational thought is given the utmost importance and those who refuse to exercise it are seen as inferior to a satanist and become tools at his disposal.

I'm not a satanist personally, but from reading different literature on satanism, this is my impression of what satanism is. Personally I think you should have done the some reading first before asking questions, such as Satanic Bible or CoS information pack. If anyone on this forum has anything to add or correct on what I said, please do so. I welcome criticism.

Top
#12773 - 09/27/03 09:39 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
OneMadFool Offline


Registered: 03/09/03
Posts: 209
Loc: Pennsylvainia
Quote:

I'm not a satanist personally, but from reading different literature on satanism, this is my impression of what satanism is.




Not to be rude.....but if you are NOT a Satanist, then may I ask what you consider yourself and why you have decided to join a board that deals primarly with SATANISM???
_________________________
Sometimes it's good to burn your bridges...it keeps the idiots who can't swim from following you.

Top
#12774 - 09/27/03 09:43 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: OneMadFool]
Anonymous
Unregistered


I haven't made the final commitment to be calling myself that. I share great amount of philosophy with this religion, and I hang around here to find out if this is really something that is right and beneficial for me. Once I'm certain of it, I'll send in my application and call myself a satanist. Until then I'm just an individual with very simular views on life.

Top
#12775 - 09/27/03 09:47 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Hagen von Tronje Offline

CoS Priest

Registered: 06/28/01
Posts: 10121
I'll give the short, simple answers to both:

a) Are you atheist, or agnostic?

Neither one, I'm a Satanist.

b) Why join the Church of Satan?

Because I am in alignment with the goals of the Church of Satan, and wish to further them through my own effort.
_________________________
"The devil I'll bring you," answered Hagen. "I have enough to carry with my shield and breastplate; my helm is bright, the sword is in my hand, therefore I bring you naught."

Top
#12776 - 09/27/03 09:50 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Just for clarification, you do not have to be a CoS member to be a satanist. You just have to live like one. Besides, it's perfectly reasonable for one to be "wary" of the title itself. Many people can be of satanic nature and not label themselves as such, or they might not even be aware of the existence of a title that follows with their thought mode. Many individuals who are not satanists but are curious in exploring (i.e. the way to their awakening) the dark realms should be welcome to do so.

Top
#12777 - 09/27/03 09:54 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Taliana Offline


Registered: 02/08/03
Posts: 1217
Loc: England
"You say there are more opportunities that would arise once joined?"

Well for one, you get access to the Members Only section of this forum, which even non-members know is a place of great knowledge.

Second, if you become an active member you can become involved in the "Satanic Community" (I know, I know, it's not a community, someone give me a better word and I'll use it) through grottos or the special interest groups. In other words you get to interact with like minded and interesting individuals, which is always a nice thing.

A lot of people think that you join the CoS to be "part of something bigger" ... I think it's more that pretty much everyone likes to know that they are involved in something along with others who are like them. We may not be sheep but even wolves run in packs, and yet at the same time it is important for any Satanist to remember that you are strong enough to stand alone if you need (or wish) to. You don't NEED to interact with other Satanists, but sometimes it's nice to.

But those are just the thoughts of a non-member, I'm sure members will have a different view of things

Top
#12778 - 09/27/03 10:00 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Yes, I came to that conclusion too. But so far I don't believe I fully understand what Satansim is, so until I do I'll resort from calling myself that. I generally analyze everything from begining to end before making commitment to it. There are too many people who get into ventures and religions by starting to read about them, and within an hour of reading they think to themselves "yes, Yes, YES! YESSS!!! This is definetely for me!". Soon after they commit to it they discover certain things are "wrong" about what they have become. Right now I'm studying an making sure there are no, what they call, "small print" that comes with the title of Satanist. There are too many things in this world that contain "small print", and that's why I'm weary of this and very careful when it comes to commiting myself to anything.

Top
#12779 - 09/27/03 10:06 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Taliana]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:

But those are just the thoughts of a non-member, I'm sure members will have a different view of things




I'm also finding that since there are no rigid guidelines in Satanism, there can be many interpretations all of which are correct. Satanism recognizes that each person is different, and instead of branding the same "product" to everyone like most other religions, Satanism simply provides basic skeleton of the philosophy, and allows each member to tailor it to their own personal lives. These finished "products of thought" may or may not be fully agreeable with each other, but if they fall in the definition of that basic skeleton they are concidered Satanic.

Top
#12780 - 09/27/03 10:09 PM Your Fault.
Nemo Offline
CoS Magister

Registered: 10/06/02
Posts: 12536
Loc: Point Nemo s48:52:31:748, w123...
The outcome of any communication depends on the communicator.

If you don't mean to offend, try harder not to do so!

Top
#12781 - 09/27/03 10:13 PM Skeleton.
Nemo Offline
CoS Magister

Registered: 10/06/02
Posts: 12536
Loc: Point Nemo s48:52:31:748, w123...
Hmmm. Maybe you need to study our writings more. What you have just suggesting is not the case. Sorry.

Top
#12782 - 09/27/03 10:56 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Because my beliefs can be justified by logic (and yes, because they can be justified has no impact on whether it is fact or belief), I state that the most logical thing for a curious satanist, a scholar of sorts, is to believe that there might be an entity out there. By shutting yourself out (i.e. Atheism), you render yourself unable to justify the logic in your actions should you be proven wrong. Many atheists can justify their actions now, but this justification may not exceed "I just don't care." That's being lazy, and oh, how very impressive that our fellow demons are just sitting on their asses NOT CARING! I may be a lazy person, but that's both lazy and foolish.

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. As I once said in a previous post, The Study is Most Intriguing! :devil:

Top
#12783 - 09/27/03 11:05 PM "It's all good" Bunco post
Anonymous
Unregistered


I'm also finding that since there are no rigid guidelines in Satanism, there can be many interpretations all of which are correct.

You're gravely mistaken! It's that attitude that invites every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Jane to "come out and hang under the empowering umbrella of Satanism."
There ARE certain requirements to qualify as a Satanist and if you don't fit them, you're just an embarassment to yourself and to those who were born Satanists. From what I gather, realization that you are a Satanist comes right after completely reading and understanding the Satanic Bible. There's no pickin' and choosin' to suit your tastes and STILL call yourself a Satanist.
Anyway, to reply to the topic at hand...well I have alot of doubts. I've labled myself so many things my skin is covered in sticky! (well, I washed off eventually) I find the practice at this point in my life tiresome and boring...and usually there's a group of Atheists (a label I don't wear anymore) Agnostics, or whatever joining together in some set of unifying beliefs or political agendas that cause me to peel off their label...I don't like to be misunderstood (even by my inferiors...but then again I doubt if they're worth the trouble).

Though lately, I seem to dig this title:
Carbon based lifeform clinging to a flying rock in space!


Top
#12785 - 09/28/03 12:33 AM Re: Questions. [Re: ]
Anonymous
Unregistered


perhaps belief is not the word I am looking for, and by no means did I mean faith. But, the desire is the same as those mathematicians who figured out what pi is, those people who developed computers. It is a means to improve myself mentally. I justify myself to myself and if necessary to make a point, to others as well.

In a sense, this statement summarizes it all: Closing the door to knowledge closes the door to power.

Top
#12786 - 09/28/03 12:36 AM Re: Questions. [Re: ]
Perndog Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 09/06/03
Posts: 558
Loc: USA
It gets you the same thing any abstract discussion (politics, for example) gets you: the enjoyment of the philosophising itself.

Top
#12787 - 09/28/03 01:40 AM Re: Questions. [Re: Perndog]
Anonymous
Unregistered


I'd best clarify my position before continuing.
I have read the information pack, and excerpts from 'the satanic bible'. So far, I agree with the proposed philosophy. So, I am here to find out more about it before making a commitment. I'm here to learn about the people also. How satanism has affected their lives etc.
I appologize for refering to satanism as a 'faith' or 'belief'. I suppose 'philosophy' is a better term.
As you may have guessed, the questions refering to the CoS organisation are there to help me make my mind up on whether to join after I do more research or not.
I orded the satanic bible today actually. I guess that will be the ultimate test of whether I agree or not with it all.
BTW, thanks to the users here who sent me the isbn of the book.
And thanks to everyone who has responded so far. I'm sure discussing these issues are benificial to most users here.

Top
#12788 - 09/28/03 04:52 AM A Caucus Race
Wonka Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 11/02/02
Posts: 638
Loc: The City of Red Lights
The debate on God's existence is a trite one. Each side uses the lack of evidence from their opponent AS evidence to support themselves.

Both sides require a certain degree of faith. Faith is not functional, it's counterproductive. Therefore, I will stay out of the "debate", as it serves no purpose to me.

I don't care becausing caring leads me no where. When solid evidence to support the existence of a seperate, almighty entity responsible for the creation of life is supplied, and only then, will I care.

Until then, leave the religious wars to the ones who like to fight.
_________________________
Believe Nothing. Test Everything.

Top
#12789 - 09/28/03 05:42 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Anonymous
Unregistered



Top
#12790 - 09/28/03 10:57 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Insurgent Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 08/08/01
Posts: 2312
I for one believe that the gods of religion DO NOT exist. My reason? Because if you can disprove what a God is based upon, then you essentially disprove that God. And the Christian Bible has been debunked in every which way.

I would go further but I don't care to repeat what has been wrote a million times.
_________________________
My site: www.josiegallows.com

"My dear Insurgent you're an extremist, intolerant and you have prejudices. That's all."

"I am a fucking Satanist and desire in all of my being to be the Queen of the World if at all possible...."

Top
#12791 - 09/28/03 12:52 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Anonymous
Unregistered


I am agnostic, though I really don't worry whether a god(or any other supreme entity) does or does not exist, because of my doubt that there is one, I try to live my short life to the fullest(hence my Satanic philosophy).

I am not athiest because I think the idea of the existence of a "God" is just as outrageous as the idea of a "God" not existing. Either way, the universe is the one most mysterious things a mind can ponder that we currently have knowledge of. If a "God" does exist, we have the question of how this "shit" all started, (i.e. where this "God" came from, not just how he was formed), and if there is no "God", how the universe's content was there for it to be created. (where the universe came from, why it's here etc.) I believe athiesm is just as outrageous as the belief in a "God" due to the fact that both are extreme views, considering we really just do not know.

Top
#12792 - 09/28/03 01:15 PM The Improbability of God
CPayne Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 02/15/03
Posts: 984
Loc: Fargo, ND.......no, it's not l...
This is long, and I apologize. It is, however, a quite interesting look at the God question from several different philosophical viewpoints, and their subsequent scrutiny. It was written by Richard Dawkins from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 18, Number 3.

Quote:

_The Improbability of God_

Much of what people do is done in the name of God. Irishmen blow each other up in his name. Arabs blow themselves up in his name. Imams and ayatollahs oppress women in his name. Celibate popes and priests mess up people's sex lives in his name. Jewish shohets cut live animals' throats in his name. The achievements of religion in past history - bloody crusades, torturing inquisitions, mass-murdering conquistadors, culture-destroying missionaries, legally enforced resistance to each new piece of scientific truth until the last possible moment - are even more impressive. And what has it all been in aid of? I believe it is becoming increasingly clear that the answer is absolutely nothing at all. There is no reason for believing that any sort of gods exist and quite good reason for believing that they do not exist and never have. It has all been a gigantic waste of time and a waste of life. It would be a joke of cosmic proportions if it weren't so tragic.
Why do people believe in God? For most people the answer is still some version of the ancient Argument from Design. We look about us at the beauty and intricacy of the world - at the aerodynamic sweep of a swallow's wing, at the delicacy of flowers and of the butterflies that fertilize them, through a microscope at the teeming life in every drop of pond water, through a telescope at the crown of a giant redwood tree. We reflect on the electronic complexity and optical perfection of our own eyes that do the looking. If we have any imagination, these things drive us to a sense of awe and reverence. Moreover, we cannot fail to be struck by the obvious resemblance of living organs to the carefully planned designs of human engineers. The argument was most famously expressed in the watchmaker analogy of the eighteenth-century priest William Paley. Even if you didn't know what a watch was, the obviously designed character of its cogs and springs and of how they mesh together for a purpose would force you to conclude "that the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use." If this is true of a comparatively simple watch, how much the more so is it true of the eye, ear, kidney, elbow joint, brain? These beautiful, complex, intricate, and obviously purpose-built structures must have had their own designer, their own watchmaker - God.
So ran Paley's argument, and it is an argument that nearly all thoughtful and sensitive people discover for themselves at some stage in their childhood. Throughout most of history it must have seemed utterly convincing, self-evidently true. And yet, as the result of one of the most astonishing intellectual revolutions in history, we now know that it is wrong, or at least superfluous. We now know that the order and apparent purposefulness of the living world has come about through an entirely different process, a process that works without the need for any designer and one that is a consequence of basically very simple laws of physics. This is the process of evolution by natural selection, discovered by Charles Darwin and, independently, by Alfred Russel Wallace.
What do all objects that look as if they must have had a designer have in common? The answer is statistical improbability. If we find a transparent pebble washed into the shape of a crude lens by the sea, we do not conclude that it must have been designed by an optician: the unaided laws of physics are capable of achieving this result; it is not too improbable to have just "happened." But if we find an elaborate compound lens, carefully corrected against spherical and chromatic aberration, coated against glare, and with "Carl Zeiss" engraved on the rim, we know that it could not have just happened by chance. If you take all the atoms of such a compound lens and throw them together at random under the jostling influence of the ordinary laws of physics in nature, it is theoretically possible that, by sheer luck, the atoms would just happen to fall into the pattern of a Zeiss compound lens, and even that the atoms round the rim should happen to fall in such a way that the name Carl Zeiss is etched out. But the number of other ways in which the atoms could, with equal likelihood, have fallen, is so hugely, vastly, immeasurably greater that we can completely discount the chance hypothesis. Chance is out of the question as an explanation.
This is not a circular argument, by the way. It might seem to be circular because, it could be said, any particular arrangement of atoms is, with hindsight, very improbable. As has been said before, when a ball lands on a particular blade of grass on the golf course, it would be foolish to exclaim: "Out of all the billions of blades of grass that it could have fallen on, the ball actually fell on this one. How amazingly, miraculously improbable!" The fallacy here, of course, is that the ball had to land somewhere. We can only stand amazed at the improbability of the actual event if we specify it a priori: for example, if a blindfolded man spins himself round on the tee, hits the ball at random, and achieves a hole in one. That would be truly amazing, because the target destination of the ball is specified in advance.
Of all the trillions of different ways of putting together the atoms of a telescope, only a minority would actually work in some useful way. Only a tiny minority would have Carl Zeiss engraved on them, or, indeed, any recognizable words of any human language. The same goes for the parts of a watch: of all the billions of possible ways of putting them together, only a tiny minority will tell the time or do anything useful. And of course the same goes, a fortiori, for the parts of a living body. Of all the trillions of trillions of ways of putting together the parts of a body, only an infinitesimal minority would live, seek food, eat, and reproduce. True, there are many different ways of being alive - at least ten million different ways if we count the number of distinct species alive today - but, however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead!
We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated - too statistically improbable - to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being? The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. These small steps of chance are caused by genetic mutations, random changes - mistakes really - in the genetic material. They give rise to changes in the existing bodily structure. Most of these changes are deleterious and lead to death. A minority of them turn out to be slight improvements, leading to increased survival and reproduction. By this process of natural selection, those random changes that turn out to be beneficial eventually spread through the species and become the norm. The stage is now set for the next small change in the evolutionary process. After, say, a thousand of these small changes in series, each change providing the basis for the next, the end result has become, by a process of accumulation, far too complex to have come about in a single act of chance.
For instance, it is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into being, in a single lucky step, from nothing: from bare skin, let's say. It is theoretically possible in the sense that a recipe could be written out in the form of a large number of mutations. If all these mutations happened simultaneously, a complete eye could, indeed, spring from nothing. But although it is theoretically possible, it is in practice inconceivable. The quantity of luck involved is much too large. The "correct" recipe involves changes in a huge number of genes simultaneously. The correct recipe is one particular combination of changes out of trillions of equally probable combinations of chances. We can certainly rule out such a miraculous coincidence. But it is perfectly plausible that the modern eye could have sprung from something almost the same as the modern eye but not quite: a very slightly less elaborate eye. By the same argument, this slightly less elaborate eye sprang from a slightly less elaborate eye still, and so on. If you assume a sufficiently large number of sufficiently small differences between each evolutionary stage and its predecessor, you are bound to be able to derive a full, complex, working eye from bare skin. How many intermediate stages are we allowed to postulate? That depends on how much time we have to play with. Has there been enough time for eyes to evolve by little steps from nothing?
The fossils tell us that life has been evolving on Earth for more than 3,000 million years. It is almost impossible for the human mind to grasp such an immensity of time. We, naturally and mercifully, tend to see our own expected lifetime as a fairly long time, but we can't expect to live even one century. It is 2,000 years since Jesus lived, a time span long enough to blur the distinction between history and myth. Can you imagine a million such periods laid end to end? Suppose we wanted to write the whole history on a single long scroll. If we crammed all of Common Era history into one metre of scroll, how long would the pre-Common Era part of the scroll, back to the start of evolution, be? The answer is that the pre-Common Era part of the scroll would stretch from Milan to Moscow. Think of the implications of this for the quantity of evolutionary change that can be accommodated. All the domestic breeds of dogs - Pekingeses, poodles, spaniels, Saint Bernards, and Chihuahuas - have come from wolves in a time span measured in hundreds or at the most thousands of years: no more than two meters along the road from Milan to Moscow. Think of the quantity of change involved in going from a wolf to a Pekingese; now multiply that quantity of change by a million. When you look at it like that, it becomes easy to believe that an eye could have evolved from no eye by small degrees.
It remains necessary to satisfy ourselves that every one of the intermediates on the evolutionary route, say from bare skin to a modern eye, would have been favored by natural selection; would have been an improvement over its predecessor in the sequence or at least would have survived. It is no good proving to ourselves that there is theoretically a chain of almost perceptibly different intermediates leading to an eye if many of those intermediates would have died. It is sometimes argued that the parts of an eye have to be all there together or the eye won't work at all. Half an eye, the argument runs, is no better than no eye at all. You can't fly with half a wing; you can't hear with half an ear. Therefore there can't have been a series of step-by-step intermediates leading up to a modern eye, wing, or ear.
This type of argument is so naive that one can only wonder at the subconscious motives for wanting to believe it. It is obviously not true that half an eye is useless. Cataract sufferers who have had their lenses surgically removed cannot see very well without glasses, but they are still much better off than people with no eyes at all. Without a lens you can't focus a detailed image, but you can avoid bumping into obstacles and you could detect the looming shadow of a predator.
As for the argument that you can't fly with only half a wing, it is disproved by large numbers of very successful gliding animals, including mammals of many different kinds, lizards, frogs, snakes, and squids. Many different kinds of tree-dwelling animals have flaps of skin between their joints that really are fractional wings. If you fall out of a tree, any skin flap or flattening of the body that increases your surface area can save your life. And, however small or large your flaps may be, there must always be a critical height such that, if you fall from a tree of that height, your life would have been saved by just a little bit more surface area. Then, when your descendants have evolved that extra surface area, their lives would be saved by just a bit more still if they fell from trees of a slightly greater height. And so on by insensibly graded steps until, hundreds of generations later, we arrive at full wings.
Eyes and wings cannot spring into existence in a single step. That would be like having the almost infinite luck to hit upon the combination number that opens a large bank vault. But if you spun the dials of the lock at random, and every time you got a little bit closer to the lucky number the vault door creaked open another chink, you would soon have the door open! Essentially, that is the secret of how evolution by natural selection achieves what once seemed impossible. Things that cannot plausibly be derived from very different predecessors can plausibly be derived from only slightly different predecessors. Provided only that there is a sufficiently long series of such slightly different predecessors, you can derive anything from anything else.
Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once upon a time, seemed to be the prerogative of God. But is there any evidence that evolution actually has happened? The answer is yes; the evidence is overwhelming. Millions of fossils are found in exactly the places and at exactly the depths that we should expect if evolution had happened. Not a single fossil has ever been found in any place where the evolution theory would not have expected it, although this could very easily have happened: a fossil mammal in rocks so old that fishes have not yet arrived, for instance, would be enough to disprove the evolution theory.
The patterns of distribution of living animals and plants on the continents and islands of the world is exactly what would be expected if they had evolved from common ancestors by slow, gradual degrees. The patterns of resemblance among animals and plants is exactly what we should expect if some were close cousins, and others more distant cousins to each other. The fact that the genetic code is the same in all living creatures overwhelmingly suggests that all are descended from one single ancestor. The evidence for evolution is so compelling that the only way to save the creation theory is to assume that God deliberately planted enormous quantities of evidence to make it look as if evolution had happened. In other words, the fossils, the geographical distribution of animals, and so on, are all one gigantic confidence trick. Does anybody want to worship a God capable of such trickery? It is surely far more reverent, as well as more scientifically sensible, to take the evidence at face value. All living creatures are cousins of one another, descended from one remote ancestor that lived more than 3,000 million years ago.
The Argument from Design, then, has been destroyed as a reason for believing in a God. Are there any other arguments? Some people believe in God because of what appears to them to be an inner revelation. Such revelations are not always edifying but they undoubtedly feel real to the individual concerned. Many inhabitants of lunatic asylums have an unshakable inner faith that they are Napoleon or, indeed, God himself. There is no doubting the power of such convictions for those that have them, but this is no reason for the rest of us to believe them. Indeed, since such beliefs are mutually contradictory, we can't believe them all.
There is a little more that needs to be said. Evolution by natural selection explains a lot, but it couldn't start from nothing. It couldn't have started until there was some kind of rudimentary reproduction and heredity. Modern heredity is based on the DNA code, which is itself too complicated to have sprung spontaneously into being by a single act of chance. This seems to mean that there must have been some earlier hereditary system, now disappeared, which was simple enough to have arisen by chance and the laws of chemistry and which provided the medium in which a primitive form of cumulative natural selection could get started. DNA was a later product of this earlier cumulative selection. Before this original kind of natural selection, there was a period when complex chemical compounds were built up from simpler ones and before that a period when the chemical elements were built up from simpler elements, following the well-understood laws of physics. Before that, everything was ultimately built up from pure hydrogen in the immediate aftermath of the big bang, which initiated the universe.
There is a temptation to argue that, although God may not be needed to explain the evolution of complex order once the universe, with its fundamental laws of physics, had begun, we do need a God to explain the origin of all things. This idea doesn't leave God with very much to do: just set off the big bang, then sit back and wait for everything to happen. The physical chemist Peter Atkins, in his beautifully written book The Creation, postulates a lazy God who strove to do as little as possible in order to initiate everything. Atkins explains how each step in the history of the universe followed, by simple physical law, from its predecessor. He thus pares down the amount of work that the lazy creator would need to do and eventually concludes that he would in fact have needed to do nothing at all!
The details of the early phase of the universe belong to the realm of physics, whereas I am a biologist, more concerned with the later phases of the evolution of complexity. For me, the important point is that, even if the physicist needs to postulate an irreducible minimum that had to be present in the beginning, in order for the universe to get started, that irreducible minimum is certainly extremely simple. By definition, explanations that build on simple premises are more plausible and more satisfying than explanations that have to postulate complex and statistically improbable beginnings. And you can't get much more complex than an Almighty God!




As for your other question of why join the Church. Why, to get the nifty red card, that's why!

Top
#12793 - 09/28/03 02:41 PM Re: The Improbability of God [Re: CPayne]
Perndog Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 09/06/03
Posts: 558
Loc: USA
The "laws of physics" are only invented models used to further understanding. They are riddled with assumptions, postulates, and uncertainties.

Newton did a good job of explaining the effects of gravity, but he didn't have any idea why gravity worked.

Any scientist who says there are no gods because science accounts for everything is deluding himself. There is yet no Theory of Everything.

God (if there is such a thing) is in the details.

Top
#12794 - 09/28/03 03:18 PM Re: The Improbability of God [Re: Perndog]
DancingintheDark Offline


Registered: 08/20/02
Posts: 745
Quote:

The "laws of physics" are only invented models used to further understanding. They are riddled with assumptions, postulates, and uncertainties.




Not at all, the laws of physics are based on universal "truths", phenomena that strictly adheres to proven rules and principles under observation. They may perhaps change slightly over prolonged periods of time as the universe evolves but you would be talking millions of years. They are fundamental. If there is any uncertainty around a phenomenon then it does not become law. Anything unproven remains a theory.

Quote:

Any scientist who says there are no gods because science accounts for everything is deluding himself. There is yet no Theory of Everything.




Oh there are plenty of theories... nothing proven yet though.
_________________________
This message will self destruct

Top
#12795 - 09/28/03 03:35 PM Come,now, Mr Anderson!
Mr_Atrox Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 09/16/03
Posts: 1814
Loc: Lycopolis
Boy oh boy!, Australia must really be getting hot! and boring!
First of all, there are a few questions you must first ask yourself, and they are the very same you've directed at everyone else.
You are all but transparent in your efforts to raise anwers to the questions that have obviously been bugging you. I will not sit here and take the high (pretentious) ground by offering that I am above participating in such an easily entered debate!
I am only human after all.
Why, I ask in return, bother with any of it? Your tone suggests that you are so much above all of this ,yet there you are....posting away. Why would it matter who joins a Church, whether it be of Satan or Anderson?
The fact of the matter is this. You, sir, are a masochist and , I assure you, you have definitely come to the right place!
Life is for the living, have fun or get the Hell out of the way!

_________________________
"If you wanna hurt me, you're gonna have to earn it motherfucker."
-Mickey Rourke

Top
#12796 - 09/28/03 03:55 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Wonka]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:

No Satanist with a thirst of knowledge and progress can be a true Athiest.

The key element, doubt, should always be present. I have no reason to think a creature fitting the Judeo-Christian concept of God exists. If something presents itself as evidence towards the theory of God, I will look into it if it interests me.

The existence of such a creature has made no visible impact in my life, so whether or not he exists is not a factor in my life. Thus, he is not worthy of my attention. Satanism is a religion of practicality, not of belief or idle thoughts of no importance (unless one gains pleasure from them). The only exception to beliefs, is in the ritual chamber, and even suspending disbelief serves a practical purpose.




Wonderfully put.

Top
#12797 - 09/28/03 03:59 PM Re: The Improbability of God [Re: DancingintheDark]
Perndog Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 09/06/03
Posts: 558
Loc: USA
"the laws of physics are based on universal "truths", phenomena that strictly adheres to proven rules and principles under observation"

Precisely. The laws and rules propounded by physicists are representations of actual processes, and those processes are seen though repeating phenomena (on a tangent, past repetition doesn't guarantee future repetition. I remember the story of the chicken who is fed every day for a year and eaten the day afterward).

The principles underlying the phenomena are never completely understood; we can describe some things quite well in certain terms, but that doesn't mean we are using the same terms that nature uses.

Science worked when the existence of atoms was proven and they were considered indivisible. Science still worked when smaller particles within atoms were proven, and that was thought to be the whole picture. Science works yet today when those smaller particles are made of still smaller particles. With such constant revisionism, it is difficult to believe that the complete explanation has been found for anything - there is always a deeper level to be reached, always something unseen that could knock an established "truth" off its pedestal.

Top
#12798 - 09/28/03 04:52 PM Re: The Improbability of God [Re: Perndog]
Blackheart Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 389
Loc: England
I agree with you mostly.

Personally, I am of the opinion that absolute scientific truths are just as mythical as absolute religious truths. Science has simply replaced God as the thing which can give us enlightenment.

Bunny

Top
#12799 - 09/28/03 06:27 PM Back to God. [Re: Perndog]
Nemo Offline
CoS Magister

Registered: 10/06/02
Posts: 12536
Loc: Point Nemo s48:52:31:748, w123...
I just wanted to suggest that if the god being described is the Judeo-Islamic-Christian "Yahweh-Allah-Jehovah" and this demented, homicidal, ego-imoverished maniac actually existed, any person of worth would be opposed to that God as a matter of principle. By comparison, Hitler and Stalin were sweethearts.

Read your Bible.

End of sermon.

Top
#12800 - 09/28/03 06:54 PM Re: The Improbability of God [Re: Perndog]
DancingintheDark Offline


Registered: 08/20/02
Posts: 745
Quote:

The laws and rules propounded by physicists are representations of actual processes, and those processes are seen though repeating phenomena




Exactly, and as such the repeatability factor removes uncertainty and assumption, to an extent whereby a phenomena may become regarded as law.

Quote:

The principles underlying the phenomena are never completely understood; we can describe some things quite well in certain terms, but that doesn't mean we are using the same terms that nature uses.




Yes however the laws of physics are simply provable observations about certain phenomena, which offer scientists a solid platform to work from. They are not philosopher's stones, nor are they meant to be. They don't allude to the secrets of life, they are just observations concerning it.

Quote:

Science worked when the existence of atoms was proven and they were considered indivisible. Science still worked when smaller particles within atoms were proven, and that was thought to be the whole picture. Science works yet today when those smaller particles are made of still smaller particles. With such constant revisionism, it is difficult to believe that the complete explanation has been found for anything - there is always a deeper level to be reached, always something unseen that could knock an established "truth" off its pedestal.




Indeed there is revisionism in science, but remember something does not become law until it is repeatably verifiable. New layers or levels may be uncovered, however laws will still apply at the level they were first observed on. Newtonian physics still fits perfectly with our view of the world, on a macroscopic level. Just because of Einstein's relativity or revelations at a microscopic level science does not discard Newton's work, because Newtonian physics is proven at a macroscopic level. What it must do is reconcile the different levels or layers you speak of, not throw one or the other out. All that is happening is the view is widening to encompass more and more things, and of course it would be conveient to have a common thread tying all those things together.

I agree that science doesn't have all the answers, in fact I would be the first to say it, however we have come a long fucking way from the Middle Ages, and an even longer way from the Stone Age. This is largely due to science. If man's fate had been left in the hands of the churches we would still be in the Dark Ages!
_________________________
This message will self destruct

Top
#12801 - 09/28/03 07:02 PM Re: Back to God. [Re: Nemo]
Perndog Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 09/06/03
Posts: 558
Loc: USA
While I'm not quite sure how that applies to the point I was trying to make, rest assured that I generally don't assign a personality to the word "god" unless I'm specifically talking about Christianity.

Top
#12802 - 09/28/03 07:10 PM Re: The Improbability of God [Re: DancingintheDark]
Perndog Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 09/06/03
Posts: 558
Loc: USA
"Science doesn't have all the answers" is the only point I was really trying to make; we're on the same page. I just wanted to point out that when a scientist says "we don't need a god because I can show you exactly how the universe evolved by physical laws alone," he is assuming that he *does* have all the answers, which I think is a little foolish. As you said, scientific laws don't allude to the secrets of life, but the Dr. Atkins that CPayne's article referred to seemed to think that he already knew all the secrets.

Top
#12803 - 09/28/03 07:25 PM Re: The Improbability of God [Re: Perndog]
DancingintheDark Offline


Registered: 08/20/02
Posts: 745
Dr Atkins...

Heh, perhaps it is the same good doctor who came up with the Atkin's diet, widely acclaimed by celebrities but now denounced by certain health organizations as dangerous! Perhaps he is now turning his hand to unravelling the mysteries of the universe... Satan help us!
_________________________
This message will self destruct

Top
#12804 - 09/28/03 07:32 PM Re: Back to God. [Re: Nemo]
Anonymous
Unregistered


And a hearty "amen" to that!

Top
#12805 - 09/28/03 08:01 PM Re: Back to God. [Re: Nemo]
TrojZyr Offline
CoS Witch

Registered: 07/25/01
Posts: 12990
Loc: The Solid State
Just a digression...

I heard right from the horse's mouth today that Hitler was placed on the throne by Yhwh. Never had a chance to ask what Yhwh's game plan was, but I'd be very interested to hear the rationalization for this.

The guy did unwittingly show that Christians are somewhat between a rock and a hard place on this matter. Unless one twists and ignores Yhwh's eagerness to meddle in affairs, one has to typically choose between an interpretation that makes the deity look impotent, and one that makes the deity look evil.
_________________________
"Gentlemen, the verdict is guilty, on all ten counts of first-degree stupidity. The penalty phase will now begin."--Divine, "Pink Flamingos."

"The strong rule the weak, and the cunning rule over all." HS!

Top
#12806 - 09/28/03 08:58 PM Re: A Caucus Race [Re: Wonka]
Anonymous
Unregistered


You're right in stating that there is no ultimate benefit to choosing a side, which is precisely why I am on neither side. Theists would say "Just because air cannot be seen doesn't mean it's not there, just because God cannot be seen...", while Atheists would say "We can prove air exists, we cannot prove God exists". Well, to them, I say "What cannot be seen may or may not exist."

I study, I search, I reason...because I like to. While evil shall dominate good, neutrality shall remain forever most powerful, and it would be wise for the satanist to acknowledge this power and put it in his weaponry...it will serve his judgement well and most unblinded.

Top
#12807 - 09/28/03 09:55 PM Critique
Citizen_Parker Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 04/15/03
Posts: 217
Quote:

I welcome criticism.




Yes...I've noticed that quite clearly. Or is it, more accurately, conflict you welcome? Or perhaps even seek out?
_________________________
Hail Satan!

Parker

Test Everything. Believe Nothing.

Top
#12808 - 09/28/03 10:51 PM Re: Critique [Re: Citizen_Parker]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Perhaps... I believe that it's on the basis of a good conflict that some of the most interesting and wise things are said and done... But I do learn from it, and take note of what happens in the conflict. I find it's one of the quickest ways to learn something new and improve one's logic, as well as to test the ground of one's philosophy.

Top
#12809 - 09/28/03 11:11 PM Re: Back to God. [Re: Nemo]
Anonymous
Unregistered


That's the mindset I've always had. If (and this is REALLY theoretical) everything the Christians had been saying in the Bible and all the general crap is true, and when the day of raptures comes and Jesus comes before us who were "left behind", I will gladly not bow down. I will gladly walk over to that hole they opened to throw Lucifer into and dive right in

Top
#12810 - 09/29/03 04:18 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Anonymous
Unregistered


I am completely certain that the Xtian God does not exist. It is logically improbable for "Him" to exist. As far as any other "higher powers," I have yet to see any supporting evidence.

As for joining the CoS, I wanted to show my support for the only organization I agree with completely. It is an honor and a privledge to be a member of the Church of Satan.

Top
#12811 - 09/29/03 04:59 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Discipline Offline
CoS Warlock

Registered: 08/25/03
Posts: 6796
Loc: Forever West
Why should I worry if there is a god or not. If he does exist why should I fear him when he has no control over me. Why should I be his slave?

As for the agtonostic and athiest question? I'm a Satanist. I don't need to go into depth on why. I've stated why I choose the left hand path before.

Why do I believe what I do? I've experienced and witnessed enough to make the judgment that there is no omni supreme being. Most have told me that they were amazed that I came back from the war still with no faith in some form of god. I saw no miracles, no divine wrath for the heathens, (I being one). All I saw was humanity at it's worst. I did wittness god's corruption of humanity to kill it's self.

Oh, I did see satan. He was sitting on a curb in Baghdad flashing the sign of the horned beast. I salute him, for he gave me the power to survive.

As for the member question, you can practice satanism either way. One is just a little more activily involved than the other.
_________________________
"I've learned . . . that life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer it gets to the end, the faster it goes." ~Andy Rooney

"At last I shall have time to devote myself seriously and freely to the destruction of all my former opinions." ~Descartes

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” ~Richard Feynman

Top
#12812 - 09/29/03 11:59 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
ochsenschaedel Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 1132
Loc: Nürnberg, Germany
As to the question about god, I share Dr. LaVeys opinion that if there is an all powerful entity that is responsible for the creation of everything, then that entity is much too impersonal and huge to worry about our puny little asses here on earth. So why should I waste my time tossing prayers at it. In my world there is one god... myself. That god will be worshipped with all I have.

To your second question:
I respect the CoS as an organizationand everything it stands for. I also have great respect for Dr. LaVey and his brilliant mind. In his works he pushed all the right buttons. I show my respect by carrying a crimson card with my name on it. It's as
simple as that.

Hail Satan!
Hail Anton LaVey!
Hail the CoS!
Hail ME!!!!!
_________________________


"A casual stroll through a lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. " ...Friedrich Nietzsche

Top
#12813 - 09/29/03 12:22 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
ochsenschaedel Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 1132
Loc: Nürnberg, Germany
You are absolutely and completely wrong!
Satanism is not a skeleton that anyone can "slip into" and bend to shape as it suits them. Satanism is described by Dr. Lavey in his many writings. Described in detail, I might add.
A person such as you or I come along, read the books and either agree or not. One who agrees is (very simply put) a Satanist and one who disagrees is not... period.
Although there is no "punishment" for not adhering to the Nine Satanic Statements or the Eleven Rules of the Earth, non-adherance shows that you are not a Satanist.
You do not bend the rules to suit yourself.
I think it is time for you to curl up on the couch and read some more. If I may suggest a few good titles:
The Satanic Bible
The Devil's Notebook
Tha Satanic Witch
When you are finished, read the other titles by Dr. LaVey and continue on with the likes of Ragnar Redbeard and the countless essays by members of the CoS hierarchy.
If you are then still convinced that Satanism is nothing more than an outline you are most definitly in the wrong category.

HS!

Markus
_________________________


"A casual stroll through a lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. " ...Friedrich Nietzsche

Top
#12814 - 09/29/03 01:44 PM Re: Back to God. [Re: TrojZyr]
pippin Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 06/28/01
Posts: 513
Loc: Sweden
The Christian mind works in mysterious ways. I had the dubious pleasure of reading through a large amount of letters and news-sheets written during World War 2 by members of a Christian Student organization as part of a job-assignment. It was kind of interesting how many of them that focused on and expressed positive aspects of the war. Like for example that WW2 was a uniting force, a force of purification and a revival of the Christian faith. Or the war as a trial and judgement of God, a call to repentance and obedience.

Keeping the herd in check can be a tough and dirty work at times it seems...
_________________________
Enjoy the silence...

Top
#12815 - 09/29/03 06:11 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: ochsenschaedel]
Anonymous
Unregistered


I liked your post and agreed with it. It's really simple when you think about it, I am my own God. I am not going to waste my precious time writing down prayers and sending them to some pie in the sky God in heaven. I am interested in Satanism.

Top
#12816 - 09/29/03 06:14 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: ochsenschaedel]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Those are some of my favorite books you metioned in that post. I really like the Satanic Witch the most, at least it's most interesting to me at this point in my life. I am a Satanist because I agree with Anton's books.

Top
#12817 - 09/30/03 03:22 AM Re: Your Fault. [Re: Nemo]
YoungSoulRebel Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 08/01/01
Posts: 1833
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
It will never cease to amuse me that the best lessons are often the simplest.

_________________________
"Insane people are always sure that they are fine. It is only the sane people who are willing to admit that they are crazy."
- Nora Ephron

"Usually when you ask somebody in college why they are there, they'll tell you it's to get an education. The truth of it is, they are there to get the degree so that they can get ahead in the rat race. Too many college radicals are two-timing punks."
- Abbie Hoffman

"My life has no purpose, no direction, no aim, no meaning, and yet I'm happy. I can't figure it out. What am I doing right?"
- Charles M Schulz

“One of the great things about young people is that they do question, that they do care deeply about justice, and they they have open minds.”
- Zack de la Rocha

Top
#12818 - 09/30/03 01:26 PM Re: Questions.
Bastard_Child Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 05/14/03
Posts: 765
Loc: Montana, USA
I'm sure discussing these issues are benificial to most users here.

I find that statement to be presumptuous. Read TSB. If you cannot agree with 99.9% of what is written there, you have "issues" that do not need discussion in this forum.

You either "get it" or you don't...

Hail Satan!
_________________________
Exanimo ab hostilis.

Top
#12819 - 09/30/03 01:40 PM My Constant Answer: Does it really matter?
Shylock Offline


Registered: 02/08/02
Posts: 307
Loc: Tiki Land
Simply put, I find the arguments against a Theistic understanding so convincing that I don't buy into the idea of "God" of the form that would be watching us and judging our actions. However, in my opinion, the arguments in favor of a specifically Atheistic system, a Deistic system (i.e., God created the world and then left it alone without judgment), or Naturalistic system (i.e., Nature=God) all contain valid points. So any of these could be right. But if none of the things I consider as possible involve anyone sending me to hell for not believing, does it really matter what I follow? Don't other things--ethics, personal goals, understanding reality, etc.--matter more than mere speculation over whether there's some abstract force out there?
_________________________
Pride may be worth less than safety but it's certainly worth more than convenience.

--The Royal Me

Top
#12820 - 09/30/03 02:00 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Bastard_Child Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 05/14/03
Posts: 765
Loc: Montana, USA
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.

Then you are not a Satanist, and you are going to spend a lot of time pulling slinters out of your ass, as it would appear that you are too insecure to jump off of said fence.

Whatsamatta...are you afraid of what you might find? Is it SAFER to sit upon your noble fence perchance? Isn' that CONVENIENT? Your inability to make a decision speaks volumes, and it would seem that your cranial computer is still infected with the White_Light virus, which does not allow logical conclusions to occur utilizing a program called chickenshit.exe, also known as iknowitall.bat which puts your OS in permanent SafeMode...
_________________________
Exanimo ab hostilis.

Top
#12821 - 09/30/03 03:04 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Bastard_Child]
Anonymous
Unregistered


No, he's just using his brain. What you're suggesting BastardChild, is totally ignorant. Let's pick a side and stick with it, and maybe we'll end up right at the end. That's so totally Christian attitude that I so inherently dispise in this world. 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!

Top
#12822 - 09/30/03 04:01 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Swordsman Offline


Registered: 03/15/03
Posts: 1026
Loc: The Netherlands
Quote:

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!




So what you are basically saying is that Christianity and Satanism are opposites?
_________________________
'Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity' - Bullet Tooth Tony 'when I die, I will instruct the undertakers to put a bell on my tombstone, just so I can have the pleasure of not getting up when people ring' - Dr. Mossy Lawn

Top
#12823 - 09/30/03 04:09 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Swordsman]
Anonymous
Unregistered


No, I haven't said that. But they are very different. Christianity is not better then Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and other faiths of that nature. Satanism is profoundly different because it focuses on using your inteligence instead believing in something blindly. What BastardChild is saying that we should pick a side and believe in at least "something" just like most other relgions tell you to, instead of making an intelectual choice which is to say that if something can't be proven nor disproven then one should not form an opinion about it until such proof presents itself.

Top
#12824 - 09/30/03 04:21 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Swordsman Offline


Registered: 03/15/03
Posts: 1026
Loc: The Netherlands
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
_________________________
'Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity' - Bullet Tooth Tony 'when I die, I will instruct the undertakers to put a bell on my tombstone, just so I can have the pleasure of not getting up when people ring' - Dr. Mossy Lawn

Top
#12825 - 09/30/03 04:41 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Swordsman]
Anonymous
Unregistered


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.

Top
#12826 - 09/30/03 04:47 PM It's a constant reminder to some...
Anonymous
Unregistered


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.

Top
#12827 - 09/30/03 04:49 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Bastard_Child]
Anonymous
Unregistered


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.

Top
#12828 - 09/30/03 06:34 PM Re: It's a constant reminder to some...
Anonymous
Unregistered


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...


Top
#12829 - 09/30/03 07:13 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Hairetikos Offline


Registered: 07/27/03
Posts: 22
Quote:

Sure, satanism is a belief...



Damn, I didn't know that.

What exactly are the beliefs of Satanism?

Top
#12830 - 10/01/03 02:51 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Bastard_Child Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 05/14/03
Posts: 765
Loc: Montana, USA
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.)

_________________________
Exanimo ab hostilis.

Top
#12831 - 10/01/03 03:10 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Malin_Wolf Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 12/06/02
Posts: 1712
Loc: A sleepy little hollow in Flor...
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.
_________________________
"There is less time than the space that confines it. Make it count." -- Me
www.myspace.com/thesickman

Top
#12832 - 10/01/03 03:13 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Bastard_Child]
Wonka Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 11/02/02
Posts: 638
Loc: The City of Red Lights
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.
_________________________
Believe Nothing. Test Everything.

Top
#12833 - 10/01/03 03:13 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Bastard_Child]
Anonymous
Unregistered


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.

Top
#12834 - 10/01/03 03:14 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Malin_Wolf Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 12/06/02
Posts: 1712
Loc: A sleepy little hollow in Flor...
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.
_________________________
"There is less time than the space that confines it. Make it count." -- Me
www.myspace.com/thesickman

Top
#12835 - 10/01/03 03:16 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Jack_Bauer Offline
CoS Warlock

Registered: 06/29/03
Posts: 1524
Loc: Germany
As I suggested before, would you please not call the founder of our religion by his forename.
I hate this lack of respect!
_________________________
~ Suum cuique. ~

Top
#12836 - 10/01/03 03:27 AM Re: Back to God.
Malin_Wolf Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 12/06/02
Posts: 1712
Loc: A sleepy little hollow in Flor...
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.
_________________________
"There is less time than the space that confines it. Make it count." -- Me
www.myspace.com/thesickman

Top
#12837 - 10/01/03 03:42 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Bastard_Child Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 05/14/03
Posts: 765
Loc: Montana, USA
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.

_________________________
Exanimo ab hostilis.

Top
#12838 - 10/01/03 04:04 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Bastard_Child Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 05/14/03
Posts: 765
Loc: Montana, USA
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!
_________________________
Exanimo ab hostilis.

Top
#12839 - 10/01/03 04:18 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Wonka]
Bastard_Child Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 05/14/03
Posts: 765
Loc: Montana, USA
That's a pretty damn good insult! I'll have to remember to use that one in the future.

I'm honored that you would appreciate it!

Although, I briefly considered not doing that, because, "If I dood it, I could get a whippin...I DOOD IT!"

Ain't I a stinker?
BASTARD_Child
_________________________
Exanimo ab hostilis.

Top
#12840 - 10/01/03 04:39 AM Re: Some Points [Re: Bastard_Child]
Dreamwalker Offline


Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1342
Loc: Colorado Springs
Overall, it seems to me that Mr. LaVey left that decision up to the individual. The reference in God of the Assholes, from Satan Speaks, discusses concepts such as "collective will" and "Jungian constructs" with reference to God. Nonetheless, he seems quite clear on the possibility of some sort of deity, albeit man-made.

Furthermore, in the TSB, there is another quote, beginning with "It is a popular misconception that the Satanist does not believe in god". That may not be exact--I let my daughter borrow my TSB, and it has disappeared into the depths of my teenager's room, where I dare not venture. Still, Mr. LaVey added in there that the satanist merely used the definition that suited him best. That does seem to leave a little wiggle room--note that the origin of said god is not mentioned. I think the definition of god is crucial for these types of communications: if you truly do accept and worship yourself as god, you wouldn't make a very good text-book definition atheist!

I describe myself as atheist for ease of communication, as society's expectations of the word are general enough to suit my purposes. Yet... I believe there is a possibility that there is a god, just as I believe in the possibility of a real Santa Claus. Not bloody likely, and I'm certainly not going to live my life like Santa really will come if I follow a certain course of action. That would be insane! But there is, in theory, some chance that he really does exist. For that matter, it's even possible that we don't exist either, at least the way we think we do. Can't prove that one either. So if you want to split hairs, I could be described as agnostic, I guess. I mean, there is a possibility, no matter how distinct or small, that there is some kind of thing that I would percieve as a deity somewhere in this multiverse, that I am but a free-floating thought, like in Twain's "Mysterious Stranger", and/or there is a guy in a little red coat who does christmasy stuff.

Of course, as you said, it's all a moot point anyway. Just thought that might be mildly interesting.
_________________________
Sweetheart of Swank ~Demonic Creamsicle~

Top
#12841 - 10/01/03 04:55 AM Re: Some Points [Re: Dreamwalker]
Bastard_Child Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 05/14/03
Posts: 765
Loc: Montana, USA
Furthermore, in the TSB, there is another quote, beginning with "It is a popular misconception that the Satanist does not believe in god".

And a little further down the page we find...
"To the Satanist "God" -by whatever name he is called, or by no name at all-is seen as the balancing force in nature, and not as being concerned with suffering. This powerful force which permeates and balances the universe is far too impersonal to care about the happiness or misery of flesh-and-blood creatures on this ball of dirt upon which we live."

This seems to imply the lack of a diety in the conventional sense of the word, however you wish to define it, as a force is far from being anthropomorphic in nature. It would seem that he was speaking metaphorically as I understand it, and it surprises me that many would disagree with that conclusion.
_________________________
Exanimo ab hostilis.

Top
#12842 - 10/01/03 05:14 AM Re: Some Points [Re: Bastard_Child]
Dreamwalker Offline


Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1342
Loc: Colorado Springs
Thank you for the rest of the quote!

I understand exactly what you are saying. While I myself do not wholly discount possibilities, I just flat-out don't believe in any other god but me. Certainly not some silly Judeo-Christian deity--that religion makes about as much sense as any Greek myths, and it's even less consistent! (though once again, I find this Jung reference intriguing--it's on my list of books to get.)

But I do see where a few people are coming from--the whole "you have no way of proving/disproving anything" argument. I suspect some of those people may actually be atheists if they were using the socially understood definition.
_________________________
Sweetheart of Swank ~Demonic Creamsicle~

Top
#12843 - 10/01/03 09:50 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Swordsman Offline


Registered: 03/15/03
Posts: 1026
Loc: The Netherlands
Exactly how large would that chance be ?

_________________________
'Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity' - Bullet Tooth Tony 'when I die, I will instruct the undertakers to put a bell on my tombstone, just so I can have the pleasure of not getting up when people ring' - Dr. Mossy Lawn

Top
#12844 - 10/01/03 09:53 AM Re: Back to God.
Swordsman Offline


Registered: 03/15/03
Posts: 1026
Loc: The Netherlands
Quote:

That's the mindset I've always had. If (and this is REALLY theoretical) everything the Christians had been saying in the Bible and all the general crap is true, and when the day of raptures comes and Jesus comes before us who were "left behind", I will gladly not bow down. I will gladly walk over to that hole they opened to throw Lucifer into and dive right in




Then I'de say you have the mindset of a braggart or a fool, probably both.

IF what christianity states as true proves out to be true, then going to hell would be the most unsatanic thing that a Satanist could possibly do.

just my two cents
_________________________
'Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity' - Bullet Tooth Tony 'when I die, I will instruct the undertakers to put a bell on my tombstone, just so I can have the pleasure of not getting up when people ring' - Dr. Mossy Lawn

Top
#12845 - 10/01/03 10:07 AM Re: Back to God. [Re: Swordsman]
BurningJayde Offline


Registered: 09/16/03
Posts: 174
Quote:

IF what Christianity states as true proves out to be true, then going to hell would be the most unsatanic thing that a Satanist could possibly do.




Is that so? Very interesting. And how is it not unSatanic to follow the herd into the Heavenly Kingdom where you will be told what you can and can't do? Where you will worship at the whims of a god, whom you can't even respect? There is no room for free thought there...no room for debate, questions...I don't see that as Satanic at all.
IF all of this were true, you know what? It'd be the end of the Satanist and the Satanic era/philosophy. Neither choice is purely Satanic. You will be in a different type herd situation in hell, just as in Heaven. No, we'd all be cleansed of our beliefs and we'd have a new title/label slapped on us.
Those are my thoughts...though I need to just leave this irrelevant topic alone already.






Top
#12846 - 10/01/03 10:19 AM Re: Back to God. [Re: BurningJayde]
Swordsman Offline


Registered: 03/15/03
Posts: 1026
Loc: The Netherlands
Okay... let's play...

when the last revelation comes(hypothetically speaking ofcourse)You'de have two choices according to the christian bible;

1. Go to hell and suffer for the rest of eternity.

2. Go to heaven and be happy for the rest of eternity.

A bit simplified perhaps, but that's the gist of it. Ofcourse, any halfway decent satanist would start taking over the place once he's in heaven, but that's so far in fairy land I won't even discuss that situation.

suffering for the rest of eternity when one could go to heaven seems a bit like counterproductive pride to me, but I'de be happy to welcome other thoughts on this nonsensical little post.
_________________________
'Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity' - Bullet Tooth Tony 'when I die, I will instruct the undertakers to put a bell on my tombstone, just so I can have the pleasure of not getting up when people ring' - Dr. Mossy Lawn

Top
#12847 - 10/01/03 12:11 PM Re: Back to God. [Re: Swordsman]
Dreamwalker Offline


Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1342
Loc: Colorado Springs
The Christian god, as described, is malicious and capricious. Who knows when he'll just change his mind and chuck your ass into the lake of fire?

Follow a juvenile egomaniacal deity and hope to maintain his favor, or go with the gentleman? Satan throughout the bible was consistent. I'd much rather take my chances with a being worthy of respect, a stable being, one who isn't a flaming homicidal baby-killing whimsical thug.

_________________________
Sweetheart of Swank ~Demonic Creamsicle~

Top
#12848 - 10/01/03 12:28 PM Re: Back to God. [Re: Dreamwalker]
Swordsman Offline


Registered: 03/15/03
Posts: 1026
Loc: The Netherlands
we're talking about a situation in which God is what the christians would like to believe he is, not what he would be if he were for real.

What you describe would be the truth if god were for real, which I think is quite unlikely

This situation defenitely wins first prize for ''The most ridicilous hypothetical situation of the year'' in the Swordsman awards

unless someone can think of something more ridicilous than christianity? come on, give it your best shot.
_________________________
'Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity' - Bullet Tooth Tony 'when I die, I will instruct the undertakers to put a bell on my tombstone, just so I can have the pleasure of not getting up when people ring' - Dr. Mossy Lawn

Top
#12849 - 10/01/03 12:33 PM Re: Back to God. [Re: Swordsman]
Anonymous
Unregistered


How about hinduism, where you worship half a million gods, and smell like a bum and sit on your dick until it goes numb to please them

Top
#12850 - 10/01/03 12:41 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Malin_Wolf]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Here's the defintion of ignorance as defined by a dictionary. If you insist on using your own interpretation, than you are ignorant yourself:

"A willful neglect or refusal to acquire knowledge which one may acquire and it is his duty to have."

Since the knowledge can't be aquired for sure, the fact that he's borderlining between sides is not ignorant. You picking a side might prove more ignorant at one point, because you will be biased by opinions of one side, so even when all the facts are presented you will make the wrong choice.

Top
#12851 - 10/01/03 12:54 PM Re: Back to God.
Swordsman Offline


Registered: 03/15/03
Posts: 1026
Loc: The Netherlands
equally ridicilous, but at least Hindoeists have never burned people at stakes.

I'll take a dick-sitting hindoeist over a bible-thumping christian anyday
_________________________
'Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity' - Bullet Tooth Tony 'when I die, I will instruct the undertakers to put a bell on my tombstone, just so I can have the pleasure of not getting up when people ring' - Dr. Mossy Lawn

Top
#12852 - 10/01/03 12:59 PM Re: Back to God. [Re: Swordsman]
Jack_Bauer Offline
CoS Warlock

Registered: 06/29/03
Posts: 1524
Loc: Germany
Quote:

but at least Hindoeists have never burned people at stakes



Yes, they did. When a man died, his wife was burned alive together with his body. But I am not sure, when this was abolished.
_________________________
~ Suum cuique. ~

Top
#12853 - 10/01/03 01:05 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Bastard_Child]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Correction, I make decisions on the most likely probability. That's why when viewing christianity, I see at as a very unlikely probability, therefore I live my life as a Satanist. HOWEVER, I still keep an open mind and give EQUAL EVALUATION to further evidence if such were to present itself that would change this probability in favor of christianity, then I would make the shift. Every agnostic decision is made that way, otherwise you wouldn't be able to do ANYTHING in your life. But if you just pick a side, and put a curtain on the rest of the world (btw it is quite obvious to me and to many other people on this board that you have already done so), you will end up locked in a little corner with no escape.

PS: Recognize that LaVey was just a wise man, and not a supreme entity that was wiser they you ever will. He should be given respect only as such, and you should keep in mind that you can be better then him by continuing where he left off (like a student succeeding he's master).

Top
#12854 - 10/01/03 01:06 PM Re: Back to God. [Re: Jack_Bauer]
Swordsman Offline


Registered: 03/15/03
Posts: 1026
Loc: The Netherlands
Ohhhkaayy...

*grabs history book*

ah got it!

They never started any crusades
_________________________
'Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity' - Bullet Tooth Tony 'when I die, I will instruct the undertakers to put a bell on my tombstone, just so I can have the pleasure of not getting up when people ring' - Dr. Mossy Lawn

Top
#12855 - 10/01/03 01:10 PM Re: Back to God. [Re: Swordsman]
Jack_Bauer Offline
CoS Warlock

Registered: 06/29/03
Posts: 1524
Loc: Germany
*laughs*

At least they invented the Kamasutra...
_________________________
~ Suum cuique. ~

Top
#12856 - 10/01/03 01:20 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Why would it even matter. Assuming that such a thing as superbeings do exist, it seems to be factual that they simply don't care about the third ball of dirt from the sun. A personal quote of mine, "Hope is the denial of reality; hope and faith go hand and hand. Thusly faith is a waste of time."

Top
#12857 - 10/01/03 01:24 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Perndog Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 09/06/03
Posts: 558
Loc: USA
Quote:

Here's the defintion of ignorance as defined by a dictionary. If you insist on using your own interpretation, than you are ignorant yourself:

"A willful neglect or refusal to acquire knowledge which one may acquire and it is his duty to have."




What macsux isn't telling us is that this is a theological usage of the word, taken straight from the Christian Book of Common Prayer. The standard definition of ignorance is simply lack of information.

Top
#12858 - 10/01/03 03:02 PM Re: Back to God. [Re: Swordsman]
BurningJayde Offline


Registered: 09/16/03
Posts: 174
IF one were able to start a revolt in the future to take over the Kingdom, then yes, choosing Heaven and temporary ass kissing would be the Satanic thing to do, absolutely. But according to the scriptures, that would not be a possibility. Hence, back to square one.

Quote:

This situation defenitely wins first prize for ''The most ridicilous hypothetical situation of the year'' in the Swordsman awards





I would agree with that one-hundred percent.

Top
#12859 - 10/01/03 03:14 PM Re: Back to God. [Re: BurningJayde]
Swordsman Offline


Registered: 03/15/03
Posts: 1026
Loc: The Netherlands
I would still find bowing down and eternal pleasure a good deal more Satanic than being proud and suffer eternal torment.

But who gives a damn anyway? I prefer real life over spiritual pipe dreams like this one.
_________________________
'Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity' - Bullet Tooth Tony 'when I die, I will instruct the undertakers to put a bell on my tombstone, just so I can have the pleasure of not getting up when people ring' - Dr. Mossy Lawn

Top
#12860 - 10/01/03 03:28 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Perndog]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Yes, lack of information is also a defintion of ignorance. But that definition doesn't cover whether the information is available or not, which makes the use of the word useless, since we're all ignorant because we don't know about something. For example I lack information about biology which would technically make me ignorant by the FIRST defintion, but since I don't discuss or do anything in that field, nobody will call me ignorant in relation to that topic. The theological definition is the one that is implied when we talk about ignorance, since it covers that the availability of information and one's actions towards having that information (one may aquire) when it is directly related to what is happening (duty).

Top
#12861 - 10/01/03 06:26 PM "This is the Grammar Police..." [Re: Swordsman]
Bill_M Offline
CoS Reverend

Registered: 07/28/01
Posts: 11547
Loc: New England, USA
OK, comments here from the Grammar Police to some of you:

"god" (lower-case 'g') is the word meaning "a deity" or sometimes "a deity depicted as masculine" (as opposed to "goddess"). Zeus, Ra, Set, Shiva, YHWH, and are all examples of gods. Note that they all start with capital letters, since they're names. Note also that plural words that end in "s" don't use an apostrophe.

"God" (capital 'G') is the general name that monotheistic religions call their one deity. The name of the one god from run-of-the-mill Christianity is God. The name of the one god from Islam (another monotheistic religion) is Allah. The name of the god in my life is Bill. I wouldn't be surprised if the Christians called their god "God" as a way to program the idea that their religion is the only one that exists.

And finally: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and Buddhism are names of religions. A practicioner of one of these religions is called, respectively: a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Jew, or a Buddhist. And yes, "respectively" means "in the same sequence of the previously mentioned list", not "having respect for".

Thank you for reading.
_________________________
Reverend Bill M.

http://www.devilsmischief.com: Carnal Comedy Clips, Netherworld Novelty Numbers,
New hour every week. Download the mp3 now!

http://www.aplaceformystuff.org: Tales of Combat Clutter and other Adventures

(Wenn du Google's Übersetzer verwendest, um diese Worte zu lesen, dann bist du ein Arschloch.)

Top
#12862 - 10/01/03 07:05 PM Re: "This is the Grammar Police..." [Re: Bill_M]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Woopie doo, considering I know 3 languages, I'll make the sacrafice of lacking some grammar

Top
#12863 - 10/01/03 07:06 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Bill_M Offline
CoS Reverend

Registered: 07/28/01
Posts: 11547
Loc: New England, USA
>I am interested in what most of you believe in when it comes
>to the Judeo/Xianized view of 'GOD'.

I'm not sure how much you wanted to limit the definition. Do you mean just any omnipotent, intangible, thinking being who plays some direct role in my life? Or more specifically the one described word for word in the Old Testament (led Jews out of slavery, caused a world wide flood, etc.)?

>As in, do you remain
>Agtnostic about the issue ("He MIGHT exist"), or Athiest
>(He DOESN"T exist"). I'm interested in WHY you believe
>what you do.

My belief on this issue is reflected in my choice of religion: Satanism is non-theistic. "He does exist", "He doesn't exist", and "He may or may not exist" are statements that all make an assertion about this deity. I just don't make any assertions. It's not that I'm trying to "fence-sit"; the question simply doesn't come up for me.

As I've pointed out on other threads in the past, Satanism is not the only non-theistic religion out there. Some religions in the far east (e.g. Theravada Buddhism) have all the necessary and sufficient components of a religion (ceremony, doctrine, offered answers on why the world is the way it is) but do so without having to introduce the notion of deity. Satanism does the same.

Some sources would say that my lack of belief is "weak atheism", whereas the positive disbelief of deity is "strong atheism", and agnosticism is the asserted belief that the existance of God is unknowable.

As for "why", I first and foremost don't believe in God for the same main reason I don't believe in Santa Claus: I feel no need for the concept in my life. I can get through the ups and downs in my life without thinking of invisible creatures. Furthermore, the idea of God sounds way to conveniently made up. It fulfills the human desires to get short, over-simplified answers to complex questions ("How did the earth form? A big invisible man did it."), avoid grief and fear of death ("Mommy's with God now, dear"), offers an ego manifestation for various forms of comfort, feel that any effort pays off ("God will reward me"), and that bad things will happen to bad people.

Some Christians try pulling the line "Well what if he DOES exist? Aren't you afraid of what would happen? Shouldn't you believe 'just in case'?" This is a tired logical fallacy known as "Pascal's Wager". First of all, you can apply it to practically every religion. Xtianity is hardly the only religion that says "Bad things await after death if you don't follow us." It begs the question of why I should take the word of Pat Robertson over the word of an equally devout Muslim. Second of all, if I was a creation deity, I'd have much more respect for those who could take care of themselves using what I created them with, than those who keep bugging me for things.

>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... [Swordsman]

I totally agree. The only difference is that there's much more literature and other media propaganda on-hand to reinforce the "God" idea.

"Remember that the burden of proof is on the person alleging the existence of something. If someone tells me that the Easter Bunny is hiding in somebody's clothes closet somewhere in North America, there is no need for me to search every closet on the continent. The person making the claim has to produce the rabbit or stop wasting my time." - Frank Zindler
_________________________
Reverend Bill M.

http://www.devilsmischief.com: Carnal Comedy Clips, Netherworld Novelty Numbers,
New hour every week. Download the mp3 now!

http://www.aplaceformystuff.org: Tales of Combat Clutter and other Adventures

(Wenn du Google's Übersetzer verwendest, um diese Worte zu lesen, dann bist du ein Arschloch.)

Top
#12864 - 10/01/03 07:29 PM Re: Some Points [Re: Dreamwalker]
Anonymous
Unregistered


I was just reading Dr. LaVey's essay, God of the assholes today and thought it was really interesting. I liked how he talked about God being a spoilsport, bad loser, child molester, unpredictable, etc.
I just love how the Doctor's essay cuts through the B.S. and says it like it is. It's so true that it's just so many humans misdirected will that gives substance to the Christian "God".

" Knowing what a welsher and double crosser God can be, don't be surprised if he isn't a guy in drag. God, like his disciples, likes to make promises he can't keep ; getting human hope up, only to let it down. " from Satan Speaks p.2-3

I hate the christian god. I was a christian for a time when I was a kid and it was just one big waste of energy and time. Never, will I utter one more prayer to a God that just doesn't come through, like Dr. LaVey's essay talks about.
I think there is some value in the Holy Bible though in a historical sense, or poetry like in the Song of Solomon, which sounds like something really out of a erotic romance novel.
Well, I want to shoot God with my 9mm gun.
Maybe I'll pretend it's God next time I go to the firing range.


Edited by Abraxas (10/01/03 07:33 PM)

Top
#12865 - 10/01/03 08:25 PM Re: "This is the Grammar Police..."
Bill_M Offline
CoS Reverend

Registered: 07/28/01
Posts: 11547
Loc: New England, USA
I explicitly directed my post at more than one person (hence the phrase "some of you"), but since you replied:

>>Woopie doo, considering I know 3 languages, I'll make the
>>sacrafice of lacking some grammar

So quantity necessarily makes up for quality? Whatever.

Judging from your listed location, I'm going to assume that french and english are two of these languages. Doesn't french follow the same rule with the word for "God" (Dieu) vs. "god" (dieu)?
_________________________
Reverend Bill M.

http://www.devilsmischief.com: Carnal Comedy Clips, Netherworld Novelty Numbers,
New hour every week. Download the mp3 now!

http://www.aplaceformystuff.org: Tales of Combat Clutter and other Adventures

(Wenn du Google's Übersetzer verwendest, um diese Worte zu lesen, dann bist du ein Arschloch.)

Top
#12866 - 10/01/03 09:43 PM Re: Some Points
Dreamwalker Offline


Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1342
Loc: Colorado Springs
It is rather interesting. I like it. When I read those words, they fit so much that I've said myself

What I found most fascinating was this though:

"The collective power of all the minds that accept the god of the assholes gives substance to such a divinity. It displays the power of magic. It is the collective will of millions of ten-watt humans. By their very faith, their god becomes a reality."

~ Satan Speaks, second page, from "God of the Assholes"

I thought that was a cool concept. I've heard of that before, but I don't recall where. The whole 'collective will creation' thing. I will most definitely read up on that! Especially as far as archetypes and stuff go. Absolutely fascinating!

It's pretty nifty. All these books, filled up with fabulous philosophies and interesting theories and insight... tons of stuff. I really do love them. As an aside, I've now read TSB, TSW, TDN, and SS. What do you think would be a good 'next' book? "Secret Life of a Satanist" sounds pretty intriguing--I'm sorely tempted. Allowance time is coming 'round soon....
_________________________
Sweetheart of Swank ~Demonic Creamsicle~

Top
#12867 - 10/02/03 12:00 AM Re: "This is the Grammar Police..." [Re: Bill_M]
Anonymous
Unregistered


No, I don't know French. I'm fluent in English, Russian and Ukrainian.

Top
#12868 - 10/02/03 12:57 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Malin_Wolf Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 12/06/02
Posts: 1712
Loc: A sleepy little hollow in Flor...
It's very petty to argue semantics, don't you agree?

It's ignorant to say something exists when not one shred of evidence if viable. You might as well consider yourself one of the flock. If a deity exists.......prove it.

Again, the burden of proof is upon the shoulders of those that make claims.

So do pick your side.
_________________________
"There is less time than the space that confines it. Make it count." -- Me
www.myspace.com/thesickman

Top
#12869 - 10/02/03 01:01 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Malin_Wolf Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 12/06/02
Posts: 1712
Loc: A sleepy little hollow in Flor...
You are digging a deeper hole by trying to find justification for your position with semantics.
_________________________
"There is less time than the space that confines it. Make it count." -- Me
www.myspace.com/thesickman

Top
#12870 - 10/02/03 01:22 AM Re: Some Points
Anonymous
Unregistered


I hate the christian god. I was a christian for a time when I was a kid and it was just one big waste of energy and time. Never, will I utter one more prayer to a God that just doesn't come through,

So, you also hate Santa Claus for not giving you that shiny red bike?

What's next? Throwing a handgranate to the easterbunny when he hasn't hidden enough easter-eggs?

Top
#12871 - 10/02/03 10:24 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Malin_Wolf]
Bastard_Child Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 05/14/03
Posts: 765
Loc: Montana, USA
You are digging a deeper hole by trying to find justification for your position with semantics.

Geez DB, give the ignorant putzki a break, I mean how else is he going to justify his position? With substantiative arguementation? That might cause his over-blown ego to realize he isn't as clever as he thinks he is. It appears he wants to delude himself with psuedo-intellectual word games, because he "theoretically of course " is so fucking smart. Have you ever noticed that sometimes those with the most intellectually convoluted explanations really having nothing to say that is worth the sweat off of a tap dancing monkey's ass? (Rhetorical question )

It would appear that being pragmatic would interfere with his ability to spout inane suppositions devoid of any practical application. It is difficult to argue with simple truths, unless the arguement is convoluted with "theoretical" garbage, which unnecessarily complicates the issue, so it can be dissected to suit the individual's prejudices, or to stir fecal matter for the purpose of being a contradictory, self-important, jackass. I have observed that this individual needs to exert his "anal over nothing training" on the rest of this board, to impress everyone with his intellectual abilities, not because he has anything PERTINENT to impart. After all, he isn't a Satanist, and contrary to his accolades in regards to Dr. LaVey, he is not here to understand, he is here to impress, and he is doing a piss poor job of it.

(DISCLAIMER)
This post in no way is meant to represent the opinion of the CoS or it's membership, affiliates, advertisers, cohorts, partners, instigators, cronies, groupies, or santitation workers, but is soley the opinion, rantings, ravings, dissertations, of the author. All rights are reserved, and the duplication, transmission, or dissemination of this information, is expressly forbidden, unless you want to do so, in which case I could really give a rodent's posterior!
BC
I think, therefore I am, I think.
What goes around, comes around, promiscuity demands it is so.
Envy is watching your cat lick his own butt!
_________________________
Exanimo ab hostilis.

Top
#12872 - 10/02/03 11:50 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Swordsman]
Swordsman Offline


Registered: 03/15/03
Posts: 1026
Loc: The Netherlands
*raises hands*

I'll behave from now, I promise!
_________________________
'Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity' - Bullet Tooth Tony 'when I die, I will instruct the undertakers to put a bell on my tombstone, just so I can have the pleasure of not getting up when people ring' - Dr. Mossy Lawn

Top
#12873 - 10/02/03 04:29 PM Re: Some Points [Re: Dreamwalker]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Secret Life of a Satanist sounds pretty intriguing-

That's a really good book. It's really worth the time to study it. I really like the pictures in it and the parts in the back of the book about CoS. That's one of my favorite books.

Top
#12874 - 10/02/03 04:38 PM Re: Some Points
Anonymous
Unregistered


Well I let Santa slide and the Easter Bunny too, just because they stretch kids imagination and make them think and I think that can be magical if done properly.

Top
#12875 - 10/02/03 04:40 PM Re: Some Points [Re: Dreamwalker]
Anonymous
Unregistered


I am planning on reading the Secret life of a Satanist after I finish reading my other books. I've already read it a couple times, but I need to again.

I think it's interesting also, how the humans 10 watt will's give substance to their God. Now if only they could give substance to something of value.

Top
#12876 - 10/02/03 05:50 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
GloryS9 Offline
Banned

Registered: 06/30/01
Posts: 1736
Loc: Houston, Texas
Mranderson...Why not just read the Satanic Bible? It would be a lot easier. Satanism is not a belief. Satanists are born as Satanists. A person cannot be 'saved' or 'condemned' into Satanic 'belief.' There is no heaven, hell or other religious belief that is true. Therefore, there is no jehovah, jesus, or other human-created, fear-driven belief. You are either the hunter or the hunted. Glory


Edited by GloryS9 (10/04/03 10:59 AM)
_________________________
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger"
Mark Twain

Top
#12877 - 10/02/03 06:43 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Bastard_Child]
Anonymous
Unregistered


I don't think my intended point was gotten across, but that's alright. I'll state my choice because my choice has nothing to do with this.

I do not believe in God, or any impersonal deities. I am my own god as far as I'm concerned.

My point was that the sort of logic made in immediately denying something's existence is borderline dangerous. Scientists and armed forces are suppressionists of this sort of thinking, because a potentially volatile chemical/substance COULD detonate if startled, or a suspicious character carrying an unchecked bag COULD be a dangerous person. Take a read at Moore's Law: "Anything and Everything that can go wrong will go wrong."

Besides, I only contemplate because I can. But because I don't believe in any gods, why do I contemplate? The same reason the old greek philosophers did: knowledge and, to some extent, entertainment.

Do not preach to me the tenents of Satanism. I'm very well acquainted with them, and just because I desire to read, study, and improve my mind does not make me any less of a Satanist.

I see Satanism as a fence because it takes no sides. Thus it is the fence. Perhaps Satanism might be one side if two sides were unfenced, but rather than being evil or good, there is power in neutrality. It allows you to be good or evil, both, or none, which is the practice of lesser magic. We are not confined to any system that may limit the means that we may achieve, or even limit the achievements themselves!

If I was a pup in the sense that man is a beast, then no. However, this is a moot issue like you said, but you don't show your intelligence that well do you, you miserable cur.

Leave it at this, my way is my way. Your way is your way. They do not conflict. Why bothering caring if they will.

Top
#12878 - 10/02/03 07:11 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Nyarlathotep Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 08/10/03
Posts: 959
Loc: Nashville, TN
Quote:

...and just because I desire to read, study, and improve my mind does not make me any less of a Satanist.




In fact, IMHO it would make you MORE of a Satanist. Wouldn't it?
Quote:

I see Satanism as a fence because it takes no sides. Thus it is the fence...



I don't really see it that way...I prefer looking at it in the light of "lead, follow, or get out of the way" and then choosing to "get out of the way". Me, I'd rather find my own path, like everyone else here has in their own way. If it's a matter of leading or following, then it's the choice of being the shepherd or the sheep - I don't want to be either one. I'd rather be the coyote laughing at their foolishness then going my own way.

"Don't walk behind me, for I will not lead. Don't walk in front of me, for I will not follow. Don't walk beside me - just leave me the hell alone."

Quote:

Take a read at Moore's Law: "Anything and Everything that can go wrong will go wrong."



Hate to quibble, dude, but it's Murphy, not Moore.
_________________________
"I think, therefore I am dangerous."

"So now you'll see that evil will always triumph...because good is dumb."
-Dark Helmet, Spaceballs

HAIL SATAN!!

Top
#12879 - 10/02/03 07:23 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Nyarlathotep]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Good points. But, rather than be the shepard or the sheep, be the wolf who kills the shepard and eats his sheep (lol). I am taking my own way, but it happens to be Satanism, and I laugh with you at the foolish sheep. Besides, I don't really think about it much anymore so it's not an issue to me.

You're right. I get those two mixed up often, thx.

Top
#12880 - 10/02/03 10:08 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Prince_Satanicus Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 08/14/02
Posts: 1556
Loc: KNOXVILLE, Tennessee, (THE BLA...
I am a Satanist, of course I believe in god and satan and their both "ME", Why join the Church of Satan ? To show respect for my religion and the man that codified it Dr. Anton Szandor Lavey.
Darkest Greetings to all
DrkMasterPrince
_________________________
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger"
"The dreams of youth are the regrets of maturity"

HAIL SATAN
HAIL ANTON LAVEY
HAIL ME

Top
#12881 - 10/03/03 11:43 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Agnostic, I guess. If you think about it, there is a terrible paradox embedded in the act of believing or disbelieving in the god concept. By either supporting or actively opposing to an idea, you are "feeding" it - keeping the sucker alive.

What could be more blasphemous than to create an image of al all-encompassing, all-powerful and completely irrational god? (I personally think god is a woman that is on an everlasting PMS-trip.) Talk about hubris! Here is the clever predator monkey with his hands and his phenomenal Cortex. What does he do? He invents FEAR.

Bah!

Top
#12882 - 10/03/03 06:09 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
C_D_McKinna Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 07/03/02
Posts: 777
Loc: San Diego, CA
I am interested in what most of you believe in when it comes to the Judeo/Xianized view of 'GOD'.

As in, do you remain Agtnostic about the issue ("He MIGHT exist"), or Athiest (He DOESN"T exist").

Neither. I exist. That makes me God. In short, god does exist.

I'm interested in WHY you believe what you do.

I don't believe. I don't understand why people have such a huge problem understanding this fact. I know, don't know, have an idea, or don't care. There is no room in my life for belief. It is a useless and limiting practice to believe.

The facts you have read/heard that have helped you decide on your belief.

Facts lead to knowledge ( if they are looked at). Belief invents and ignores facts. If you believe the weatherman, you accept what he says, even if evidence supporting him is non-existant.

I look at what is. Satanism is not so much about deciding what the facts add up to, but rather accepting the facts as they are.

I would advise you re-think your beliefs if they center around 'faith' . A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

It also shows people will believe anything.

Sure, satanism is a belief, and the church of Satan is an organization.

No, Satanism is not a belief. It is a religion.

Now my question is, why belong to the church?

Because they are an orginazation worthy of my membership.

People (mainly xians) go to church for the same reasons they go to a hotel/bar: to stupefy themselves, to forget their misery, to imagine themselves, for a few minutes anyway, free and happy. How is it different for you?

Because the Church of Satan is the opposite (thus the name). First, I don't have to go anywhere to be a member in good standing. Second, they give me tools to control my life rather than escape it.
_________________________
Believe Nothing, Test Everything

"Well done is better than well said"

- Benjamin Franklin

Top
#12883 - 10/05/03 03:58 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Bastard_Child]
Malin_Wolf Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 12/06/02
Posts: 1712
Loc: A sleepy little hollow in Flor...
Geez DB, give the ignorant putzki a break, I mean how else is he going to justify his position?

Sometimes it's not worth wasting the 2 points of I.Q. to have a battle of wits with some people.

Have you ever noticed that sometimes those with the most intellectually convoluted explanations really having nothing to say that is worth the sweat off of a tap dancing monkey's ass?

Most politicians and quite a few young ones. I was once young enough to know everything.
_________________________
"There is less time than the space that confines it. Make it count." -- Me
www.myspace.com/thesickman

Top
#12884 - 12/10/03 01:16 PM Re: Back to God. [Re: Swordsman]
Anonymous
Unregistered


i agree, assuming the Xians are right, hell is endless torture and brings no pleasure to even those who like torture. IF they r right, u don't want to go there. completely an unsatanic place to go. Love pleasure, love indulgence!
Hail Satan!

Top
#12885 - 12/11/03 12:48 AM Re: The Improbability of God [Re: Perndog]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Indeed there isn't. If you've watched A Beautiful Mind, you'll know that the quest for a "Theory of Everything" (aka Governing Dynamics) is what drove a perfectly good genius insane.

Man cannot use science to comprehend everything, because Man is an animal, and a very divided animal at that.

As to the why of it, the why isn't science's job. "Why ask why, when how is so much more fun?"

Top
#12886 - 12/11/03 01:35 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Hmmm, how to answer this with the least amount of effort?
Oh, I've got it. "No."

Do we believe in the Christian God? No. Read TSB. Woshipping Yahweh would be worshipping the man who invented Yahweh. The honest Satanist woships only him/herself.

Do we base our ideas (faith=belief, thus we don't believe) on faith? No. Again, read TSB. Doubt will set men free.

Do we belong to a "church" in the Christian sense of the word? [broken record]No. Again, read TSB.[/broken record] Christians meekly follow what their Church tells them, or they "schism" from that Church and create a new one. "Cursed are the lovers of God, for they shall be as shorn sheep."

I believe that answers your questions. I refer any others to the source material.

Top
#12887 - 12/13/03 12:33 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Apathetic

Top
#12888 - 12/13/03 07:39 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Why believe in anything? Many Occultists and Philosophers would argue that nothing is certain and that only nothing is true.

Perhaps I joined the Church of Satan because I had nothing better to do.

Top
#12889 - 12/13/03 11:08 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Xerx Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 02/09/02
Posts: 656
Loc: Italy
The post of Magister Nemo: Back to God is the real essence of the thoughts of all the Satanists. Some of them believe in the existence of God, or of the Devil, but everybody would immediately sign a pact to go straight to Hell if that Monster of the Judeo/Xianized God existed.
This gives me the fool idea of putting posters around my neighborhood, like the Christians do, with “God!, No thank you!” printed on them.

The difference is that when we ritualize we know that it is self-imposed ignorance about things that nobody knows even if someone pretends to know.
The reason why we adhere to CoS is that it is a useful thing for us, as well as for some of us to believe in God or Devil suits to themselves, no tickets for an afterlife are sold and in my personal view, if this would be a mean to get away from the Judeo/Xianized God I would have done surely the best thing of my life.

Hail Satan!
Xerx
_________________________
smile smile

Top
#12890 - 12/13/03 11:36 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
reprobate Offline

CoS Warlock

Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 7140
Loc: Canada
Sorry -- who is this "God"?

I don't think I've ever heard of him.
_________________________
reprobate

Top
#12891 - 12/13/03 04:31 PM Belief.
Nemo Offline
CoS Magister

Registered: 10/06/02
Posts: 12536
Loc: Point Nemo s48:52:31:748, w123...
No belief is required.

Top
#12892 - 12/15/03 11:19 AM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: reprobate]
Bill_M Offline
CoS Reverend

Registered: 07/28/01
Posts: 11547
Loc: New England, USA
>>Sorry -- who is this "God"?

"Guarenteed Overnight Delivery". They're a trucking company here in the northeast. (1-800-DIAL-GOD)
_________________________
Reverend Bill M.

http://www.devilsmischief.com: Carnal Comedy Clips, Netherworld Novelty Numbers,
New hour every week. Download the mp3 now!

http://www.aplaceformystuff.org: Tales of Combat Clutter and other Adventures

(Wenn du Google's Übersetzer verwendest, um diese Worte zu lesen, dann bist du ein Arschloch.)

Top
#12893 - 12/15/03 01:57 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? *DELETED*
Anonymous
Unregistered


Post deleted by Reverend_Lang

Top
#12894 - 12/15/03 02:31 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Felstorm Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 10/27/03
Posts: 1474
Loc: Minnesota.
It all starts with lying to children. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, boogey men, what have you. One sure way to kill magical ability is to tell a child that something fantastic and otherworldy exists, and perpetuate that belief and then shatter it 'when they are too old for it'.

Then the pious man comes along, and out of all that pain and frustration of having their magical creations shattered, the priest picks up the peices and re-constructs a new magical reality that financially obligates them to an organised institution. And they love it. It's okay to pop the balloons of the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and Santa Claus, so long as you don't pop the myths of wealthy religous institutions, and religious people will do ANYTHING to protect their last fragile magical bubble.
_________________________
"Many people would sooner die than think - in fact, they do so." ~ Bertrand Russell

"“Let the future tell the truth, and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; the future, for which I have really worked, is mine.” ~ Nikola Tesla

Are You One of Us?

The Glorious Infernal Empire

Top
#12895 - 12/15/03 05:05 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest?
Wile_E_Quixote Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 03/14/02
Posts: 2493
Believing IS childish. It is an immature, parochial view of reality.

Mature people approach life with a whirlwind of doubt.

Top
#12896 - 12/15/03 10:00 PM Re: Satanist: Agnostic? Athiest? [Re: Bill_M]
reprobate Offline

CoS Warlock

Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 7140
Loc: Canada
Quote:

"Guarenteed Overnight Delivery". They're a trucking company here in the northeast. (1-800-DIAL-GOD)




Wow! I truly believe now that God can save me -- save me thousands of dollars on freight shipping costs, that is!
_________________________
reprobate

Top
#12897 - 08/28/04 03:52 AM Back to Satan [Re: BurningJayde]
Shockmate Offline


Registered: 08/28/04
Posts: 4
Loc: Phils
care to help me m8??? im kinda lost in surfin this site
i wanna be a member of CoS

Top
#12898 - 08/28/04 04:45 AM Re: Back to Satan [Re: Shockmate]
Felstorm Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 10/27/03
Posts: 1474
Loc: Minnesota.
Google.

Use it.
_________________________
"Many people would sooner die than think - in fact, they do so." ~ Bertrand Russell

"“Let the future tell the truth, and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; the future, for which I have really worked, is mine.” ~ Nikola Tesla

Are You One of Us?

The Glorious Infernal Empire

Top
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >


Forum Stats
12116 Members
73 Forums
43873 Topics
405551 Posts

Max Online: 197 @ 10/04/11 06:49 AM
Advertisements