To be frank,I feel science is the ultimate entity.The laws of science cannot be broken.Why turn to Satanism,when there is science?

And this is why timing is the secret to comedy...

Logic is a little tweeting bird, chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad.

Oh wait, green ladies.

No... wait... what?

Timing?

You're going to be Frank? Ok, I guess that makes me Fred.

Quadrotriticale is a high yield grain, a four lobed hybrid of wheat and rye. A perennial also, if I'm not mistaken. Its root grain, triticale, can trace its ancestry all the way back to twentieth century Canada.

Satanism isn't for everyone. We do not expect it to be. For those that it does not suit there are other avenues of exploration in life; of which, science is one.

I would point out however, that the human psyche requires both fact and fantasy to function correctly. From a psychological perspective Satanism is the only religion that accepts the fantastical side of the human mind and consciously utilises it as a tool through the application of something known as suspension of disbelief, as opposed to confusing such fantasies with reality.

No naked chick on the altars of science...

Since when did we have to choose?

Exactly. This is not an either/or situation. Virtually every Satanist adheres to the basic principles of scientific philosophy (meaning intense value upon logic, reasoning, the scientific method, rational inquiry, etc).

If the OP is merely asking "why bother with Satanism" then my answer is that if you find no need for it, then I suggest moving along. We are not recruiting.

The laws of science are subjective to human observations. Most often they are accurate and very useful, but the universe doesn’t care what mankind has to say in terms of scientific laws.

>>I feel [that] science is the ultimate entity.

Meaning you worship science? Enjoying and appreciating science is healthy, but devote worship? Even a scientist would tell you to breathe a bit and take it one step at a time.

Why turn to comedy when there is science?

Why turn to fiction when there is reality?

Why ask such strange questions?

Most Atheists who are strict adherents to only the laws of science, are, in my opinion, "throwing the baby out with the bath water" (correct me if that is not the correct usage of that phrase... haha). They see religion as false, so they reject anything that pertains to religion, even if it is beneficial.

Satanism is different in that it recognizes the benefits of religion, (physiotherapy effects, cathartic release, a healthy dose of fantasy, etc.) without suspending the use of real logic and scientific reason. Like others have said, its not an either/or relationship.

I see Satanism as more of an "Advanced Atheism." (Technically we aren't Atheist... more Self-theist... but that's usually not easy for the public to wrap their heads around...)

I'm sensing a pattern of "not getting it."

"Atheism" describes what one thinks about the idea of god(s). "Science" is a method by which people attempt to explain how things in the universe function. As already said, they do not include the fantasy element which is important to the human mind (which Science does in fact support). Neither encompass anything resembling a code of ethics or many of the other things that Satanism has.

Atheism and science are starting points by which further knowledge is acquired.

Re: "I feel [that] science is the ultimate entity",
I don't know how you see science as an entity Per se; it seems you may be nominalizing the scientific process. And, didn't you mean to say: The laws of nature cannot be broken?

However, you might be looking for another term: "Scientism is a philosophical position that exalts the methods of the natural sciences above all other modes of human inquiry. Scientism embraces only empiricism and reason to explain phenomena of any dimension, whether physical, social, cultural, or psychological." Source

Now, if you are asking why not just turn to Scientism if you are an Atheist (vs Satanism); some things are as yet un-discoverable within the limits of our current models of reality, so to reject the ineffable outright is to unnecessarily limit exploration.

But if you mean why not just turn to the scientific method if you are an atheist (vs Satanism), notice this question implies a logical fallacy; false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy). because, as mentioned before, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Further, I'm not sure what you meant by "turn to Satanism" because I don't believe Satanism is something one can turn to, for upon discovery of Satanism, an individual will resonate with it, or not.

Cheers

I had the same question, though I did not have the same preconceived, SUBJECTIVE opinion of science as you. After a lot of looking I found an answer that a scientific mind could understand.

There is a subjective component to reality. There are things that are purely the product of human imagination that have a real and large impact on your life. Easy examples include: laws, the amount of money in your bank account, days, hours and minutes.

A scientist is trained to eliminate any perceived subjectivity. In the context of scientific research, this is the correct thing to do. In the context of your life, it isn't.

A Satanist seeks to understand the subjective and objective. A Satanist seeks to bend both to their own will.

A lot of scientists scoff at those members of the public who turn science into their religion. Scientists don't make science their religion, why should you? What a depressing world, where there is no such thing as "why?".

To echo what everyone has already said here this is not an either/or situation.

However,seeing science as an entity might end up making you jump up and down on couches on Oprah's set,and ruining your career.

Because of that word in the title you gave this thread..."just".

Are you "just" an atheist, or are you more? We like to think we are more.

I think of atheism as the end of a search; and, Satanism as the beginning.

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!

Thank you. I rushed through the reply and didn't explain what exactly I meant. Satanism is a tool that is inherent in the nature of a Satanist. Science is not something we are born with it is something outside of that spectrum. Any individual can pick up science very much like a hammer and build but not everybody can pick up Satanism.

Because ritual is one hell of a fun way to spend a weekend. No pun intended. lol.

Joking aside, I suppose all that could be said has been said. Like a exotic delicacy or great painting, it is here for those attuned to it. To those whom this philosphy is inherent within their nature.

But not everyone is going to understand it nor want to.

Christianity attempts to function as placebo to benumb the pain caused by self inflicted masochism.

As the above posters have said, it's not an either/or thing. I might be a Satanist, but I'm also the biggest science nerd you can possibly meet outside of the engineering buildings at MIT.

Science is a realm of fact, and it is a very much external realm at that. It allows us to understand the world we observe and to make logical conclusions based on research, analysis, and calculation. While science may allow us to understand the nature of our bodies and psychology when it comes to the individual, it teaches us little about our "selves".

Satanism is a religion and a philosophy. It's used to help us understand the world within us and our own minds. Ritual and meditation on Satanic philosophy help us to understand ourselves, not the way the world around us is, as other religions claim to be able to do, hence some of the confusion, I think.

You know, I actually disagree.



Most Christians I know have tested their religion and believe they have experiential evidence. These Christians tell me that they've "felt the hand of God" and because of specific experiences they've concluded that 'God' is a part of their lives. Their perception of "supernatural phenomena" seems similar to our perception of results from Greater Magic.

Key Differences:

a. Satanists leave their self-deception in the ritual chamber.

b. Satanists, generally, demand repeatable results.

c. Christians pigeon-hole their experiences and miss important connections do to their narrow perspective.

I think it is a easy to put Christians in a box and say that they're foolish idiots, completely removed from reality. Underestimating your enemy should be a Satanic sin in my mind; it might fall under 8 - Counterproductive Pride but Dr. LaVey doesn't explicitly mention it there. Christians do consider their world, they just filter it through a different lens. Most people (seems to me) use some lens to fit their experiences into their own world-view. Christians very much dwell in [their own version of] reality, they just put certain events in an category illogical to us (people posting here) but with a logic rational to themselves.

Not using logic at all and using a flawed logic are two entirely different things. Fortunately, I think flawed logic is easier to manipulate than no logic.

Just want to stress - I am not speaking for the CoS. I speak for me, Drimlybunk.

I pretty much agree with you.

While I can spout out all day that there's no reason to believe in God because there is no evidence for it, all the evidence for Greater Magic working is highly circumstantial.

Now, even though I am one of the Satanists who thinks it is likely that Greater Magic has something more to it than just emotional release, I only have this perspective because I have noticed correlations to results; it is also tempered with skepticism, i.e. I don't "believe" Magic works, I just find it to be a Hell of a lot more likely than God.

What exactly my correlations and results are won't be discussed up here, but Christians, in their own perspective also have correlations and results.

Some Christians are even good skeptics! But, like you said, the biggest difference is full on belief versus thinking sommething could be "likely".

Note the word believe in your sentence. They believe they do contrary to the reality of it.



That conclusion is obviously contrary to the reality of the situation. Perhaps the nature of reality is still unknown but if there is one thing that is known, it is the fact the spiritual hogwash that the Christianity pollutes the world with is a bunch of bullshit. Experiences of such are based upon their own subjective idiocy.

I actually am failing to see where you and I are disagreeing. It sounds to me as if we are saying the same thing in just a different manner. I state that Christianity (and other spiritualistic religions) are based upon the belief in self-delusion which is utterly insane. You claim they are subjectively fucking themselves based upon misinterpretation of their experiences. The reason why they are subjectively fucking themselves is because they ignore any information that would threaten their precious faith.



Just because I am calling Christians fundamentally insane doesn't mean I am underestimating the destructive power of their insanity. Christianity has obviously done its fair share of damage but even deeper is the damage of belief. Belief in of itself when harnessed and controlled can be a productive force through Satanic Ritual. Yet Satanism is the ONLY religion that advocates willful self deceit turning a bad thing into a good thing. ? If man insists on externalizing his true self in the form of ‘God’, then why fear his true self, in fearing ‘God’, - why praise his true self in praising ‘God’, - why remain externalized from ‘God’ IN ORDER TO ENGAGE IN RITUAL AND RELIGIOUS CEREMONY IN HIS NAME? Satanists accept that they are Gods while Christians continue to believe in them.



Christians only consider whatever is convenient for them to keep their religion out of harms way. I mean for fucks sake we have dinosaur bones which utterly proves such nonsense of an ark holding every animal specie is bullshit. Yet they try their hardest to get around that. They ignore evidence and as science progresses they will continue to ignore even more concrete evidence.

I can't speak for Drimlybunk, but I think what he's getting at is this: No matter how you slice it, humans are essentially divided into two groups: spiritual and carnal.

No force can change one into the other. Just because someone leads a spiritual lifestyle does not mean they are completely barred from using logic and critical thinking. The Roman Catholic Church fully accepts evolution as being scientific fact, and separate from faith.

On the flip side just because someone lives a carnal lifestyle does not necessarily mean they are barred from illogic and irrational assumptions.

The main point is belief, yes. Upon reading your reply to Drimlybunk I think the point of disagreement is the difference between how you two perceive the same phenomenon. And, really, among Satanists that's to be expected.

Yes.

To Unknown:

I think other aspects of Christianity, like its intentional manipulation of my society's laws, are more threatening than their flawed perception of reality. I don't really care if they come to different conclusions about the same data than I do. I would rather acknowledge that persons (not "people") use logic when making decisions and use that fact to destabilize those people by modifying the way each person draws their conclusions.

Declaring that Christians are insane will not change anything. Considering Christian persons as rational thinkers gives us grounds to maneuver them towards a more pragmatic perspective and ultimately our own personal gain.

I'm as angry as you are about the way they've affect the world. I have just met and read work by too many intelligent Christians to discount them as frivolous thinkers. I also find that many 'spiritual' folks are on the fence and ready to accept anything that works 'better.' There are, of course, some people who refuse to consider alternatives but I also find those people to have the most "evidence" (stuff they see as valid). What we need to do is change their approach to investigating the world, not their conclusion.

We agree on the problem. I think we disagree on the solution, which is fine with me. We have both made a clear point.

Knowing anything is dangerous.
Belief is dangerous. Unfortunately, you can not change a belief. You can, however, change the approach that leads to those beliefs.

I would suggest that carnal, spiritual, and logical are orthogonal and that everyone has a value for each dimension of their personality. (Of course, there are other dimensions. But they are not germane to this discussion.) That is why your statement that one cannot be changed into the other makes sense to me. A high carnal value does not logically follow from a low spiritual value and vice versa.

Though there may be many examples of people for whom it appears the increase of one decreases the other. It's that "correlation is not causation" thing. Those common archetypes (or stereotypes) within the herds who share similar values for each of those dimensions can lead one to think they are linked. I would say that if you could objectively assign the values for each as 0-100 you can find someone who is a {Carnal-0, Spiritual-0, Logical-0} and you can find someone who is {C-100, S-100, L-100} and all of the values between.

Exactly!

I shall give you an A+ young Skywalker!

May the "education" be with you!!

I see your point completely now. And consequently I agree with you as well.

My cousin is an EMT and a Firefighter. He has seen some very gruesome things and has had to transport a lot of schizophrenia victims. He uses these experiences as a justification as to why god is real. He is also incredibly smart. The last time we spoke he was building a solar-powered heater for the winter. I do not agree with his persona perspective on life but then it doesn't matter. He gets along fine just the way he is. Take care.

I will bring forward that the general prejudice and topic matter on Christians and their ignorance/insanity is not necessary in this Topic. Plus I’d like to put forward most of you who have commented on their religion have no real solid evidence or backing to your general argument worth reading. In fact anyone quoting and reading satanic texts for proper insight on any one of the Christian denominations are pathetic and quite stupid/ignorant in their manner.

Also I will comment on respecting other religions and people’s own choice of worship, practice and belief. If you want to have your own opinion on a religion that’s perfectly fine also. In the future base your educated opinion and argument in a way that’s well represented that can be properly intellectually debated rather then basing your argument on just your opinion.

You complain about another religion’s ignorance without fully even understanding their religion or the different diverse beliefs within it. I consider this hypocritical and I would respect your opinion if there was some level of sophistication in your argument.

Generally I’d like to see an argument based on fact and opinion rather then just on biased opinions.

I’d like to end this with the fact that ignorance and basic prejudice really pisses me off and for a group of well established people such as the ones from this Church and forum its disappointing to see.

Let me know if you have a general conflict with what i just said. Regardless I do think that i am quite reasonable in my manner here.

What in the world are you talking about, specifically?
Who are you talking TO, specifically?
What statements, by who, are you objecting to, specifically?

Without knowing what person you are addressing, and what you are taking exception to, SPECIFICALLY, your post can be summed up as follows:

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah!!!

If your too stupid to scroll upwoulds and understand who i'm directing this to i'm not going to waste my time on this bullshit.

Congratulations!



You have just earned a temporary ban, likely to be permanent if you return without having learned some manners, which I doubt will happen.

I suspect you're simply a Christian troll anyway.

Also I will comment on respecting other religions and people’s own choice of worship, practice and belief. If you want to have your own opinion on a religion that’s perfectly fine also. In the future base your educated opinion and argument in a way that’s well represented that can be properly intellectually debated rather then basing your argument on just your opinion.

So stating an opinion and making a judgment onto a religion that is opposed to ours is intolerant and unPC? Good.

Here is the catch. Satanists are free to bad mouth Christians and Christians (pay close attention to this part) are free to bad mouth Satanists. First Amendment anyone (unless you live outside of the US)?

How do you base an educated opinion without having a biased opinion? An opinion is an opinion educated or not. An opinion is a biased thing based upon its nature.

>>You complain about another religion’s ignorance without fully even understanding their religion or the different diverse beliefs within it. I consider this hypocritical and I would respect your opinion if there was some level of sophistication in your argument.

Making generalizations are useful for the purpose of forming an argument. Does someone who argues against a religion have to understand all the divisions of that religion? They have to understanding the core principles sure, but all the multiple divisions? What a waste of spare time.

>>Generally I’d like to see an argument based on fact and opinion rather then [should be than] just on biased opinions.

What a strange sentence. Argument based on fact AND opinion rather than just opinion. What?

>>I'd like to end this with the fact that ignorance and basic prejudice really pisses me off and for a group of well established people such as the ones from this Church and forum its [it’s] disappointing to see.

First off, this website is not the Church of Satan and what is said here are the words of the speaker and not the Church of Satan. Second, if you don’t like it leave. It is rather simple.

Look like nobody now.

As I was rereading your reply I did want to add an additional thought.



Declaring the Christians of this world as insane does not take away the ability to manipulate them. Their compulsive habits of justification for their faith and actions make them quite predictable. Declaring Christians as insane does nothing in of itself but understanding their patterns of insanity is quite useful and beneficial.

This thread has completely derailed.

The problem here seems to be that some think you must choose one or the other. Science, or religion.

For some this is true,because they make it so.

When your brain is so small there isn't enough room for both "God" and reason/logic.

But some will simply choose what parts of what they want to believe,so that it fits their (sinful)life perfectly,and without consequence.

Simply put,the person who claims religion over science,spouts off such things,through or by the inventions that came from scientific means (i.e.computer,microphone,television,etc.)

We use at least one of these everyday,from some branch or development in a scientific field.

Some things just are,and science is one of them.It is information that is there to be discovered.

Ah, but declaring Christians insane may carry the unintended side-effect of killing all curiosity about what makes them tick. I find that when certain individuals are simply declared "insane," many people will stop trying to understand why the person is the way they are, does what they do, or how they do (or don't) make sense of the world, because they (wrongly) assume that there's no rhyme or reason there anyway.

Even have certifiably insane people have their reasons and their reasoning, and even being able to crack the shell there can potentially give you some major advantages in the Lesser Magic department.

Perhaps this is nothing; but, I find it interesting that the title of the thread contains "turn to". Things like this act as little threads...the kind I often find in new garments. Sometime, if I pick at them, interesting things can happen.

Anyway...

First off, I would like to ask the question: How does one base an argument of Religion(Christianity) on fact? I personally do't understand this.

And I may be way off, an may have missed a lot in this post, so if I was off post may be deleted.

Well it hasn't for me.

Hell most humans are whacko anyway. Learning how to deal with people is just part of life.

And most people are pretty nutty.