Poetry.

Geez, where to begin?

First of all, as others have pointed out, it's stupid to expect this to be an "either-or" thing. There are already Satanists who are also professional scientists. Obviously, they have no problem distinguishing their chosen philosophy from what they do at the lab. Why do you?

Second of all, the term "atheism" means nothing more than "No belief in deity". Just because somebody does not believe in deity, doesn't automatically mean that the person has to embrace science. Look at the Raelian Movement, for example.

More importantly, science is not a set of infallible laws. It is a means of understanding the world via empirical evidence and the scientific method. In fact, to treat it as dogma like you do is hypocritically unscientific, because one of the great things about science is that it's self-correcting; it will refine or replace its laws when new evidence comes along and new hypotheses are tested. If logic conflicts with reality, then reality wins.

This also means that science is simply not designed to find answers that have too many subjective parameters. Satanism realizes this, and also realizes why humans invent and make use of symbolism and ritual. But instead of just ignorantly throwing it away, we incorporate it.

I absolutely agree with your sentiment.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that, for many of us, the search started with atheism and ended when we found Satanism?

But I guess that's not quite it either... Satanism is a search in its own.

'guess I'm no poet...

Absolutely!!

The laws of science are indefinate and are based on theory and observations.
I thought i'd like to correct you as this statement you made "The laws of science cannot be broken" is not Plausible. Any Physics/Chemistry based scientist would know this.

I never really understood the term "Laws of Science." I mean, isn't that kind of an oxymoron?

Science is always self correcting and always open to criticism and re-evaluation. Everything in science is technically a theory, (be it a very well defined and "proven" theory) but there have been many concepts in the scientific community that have been accepted for hundreds of years, only to be refuted by further discovery.

To say something is a scientific law just seems to be setting ones self up for failure in the future. (especially if one claims that the laws of science are "unbreakable.")

This may help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law.

Especially important is the final sentence: " Laws can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new data, as with Bode's law or the biogenetic law."

Amusingly what came to mind was Gould's concept of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). I actually side more with Dawkins's criticism of the same (in point of fact I disagree with Gould on a great many things, most of which have nothing to do with Satanism) - that for most religions, they are not non-overlapping at all, and that the insistence of physical influence such as miracles make it a null concept, but in the case of Satanism I can see it as applicable.

Science is inquiry into what is real. It's subject to change at any time giving sufficient evidence.

Satanism is a statement of outlook. It is not subject to change, not because it is the infallible word of god, but because it is a defined philosophy that is not dependent on physical phenomena.

No overlap, no conflict, and really not even sharing the same purpose at all. Scientists regularly point out that it is not the duty of science to discover the meaning of life or answer philosophical questions - though that role has lately been attributed to it simply because for the last century or so, scientific discoveries have both nullified or challenged a great many old beliefs, and because science itself brings up a great number of ethical and philosophical questions.

Here is the start of an essay I am in the process of writing. It is incomplete but perhaps it applies somewhat.

Crime Scene by Larry Ragle

The Advocate System: representing a single point of view, gives the opposing attorneys the freedom to select witnesses who they believe will testify to information that supports their contentions.

Question: How can two scientists look at the same piece of evidence and form completely opposing opinions?

Answer: “Check and Balance”. Or as Anton LaVey put it: the balance factor. When we make a decision based upon information without looking at the opposing information which proves that our information is wrong, then we are in fact taking upon the basis of faith and are no better than the Christian cretins. This is why Christianity is an anti-worldly philosophy because the religion willfully drowns out information about the very world it exists in. Taking it even further, this is why Christians are fundamentally insane!

Thank you sir. The notes are obviously based from The Satanic Bible as well as Crime Scene by Larry Ragle.

Nietszche likened the Christian faith to "lying oneself out of reality."

Because science is more so of a tool and Satanism is a religion and a philosophy. Science studies the world and Satanism is the application of the world. It has been said that "Satanism demands study and not worship" but that is not the end of it. Satanism is about the application of that which you have studied in the real world context.

Well... You got everything else right except that Satanism IS a tool and not just a religion and a philosophy.

I think that he claimed it as a "tool" to explain that Satanism is used to apply a meaning to one's own existence.



I shall give reference:

(watch from 1:35 minutes in the video and you'll notice his quote along with his reasoning just before that quote.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxgr29Pq2co

Fully agree. Ixnay on Dualit-ay!