This is why I often go after popular standards of morality in my writings on my site. Even individuals, who claim not to believe in god, still can’t seem to divorce themselves from many of the more basic views that are often associated with the god religions.

In fact, one thing that I find disappointing is the fact that many people seem to turn away from mainstream religion, not because it makes no logical sense and is self deprecating, but because they become disenchanted with its structure and want something even less harsh and more egalitarian.

I get really sick of arguments about atheism, in which everyone seems to work under the assumption that principles that are basically-Christian, are still the only acceptable way to approach things; and anything else is just “wrong”.

Then again, that’s probably why I’m a Satanist.

I take it you had a brush with "Secular Humanism" before coming to your senses.

Am I right?

Typical. An atheist provides an insightful essay and a Christian makes a pathetic attempt to detract it with petty and shallow remarks.

My friend gave me a copy of The God Delusion for Christmas. While I certainly appreciate the impact Dawkins is creating, the book bored the piss out of me. I finished four chapters and I just couldn't force myself to read any more. I don't need scientific affirmations for my atheism. It simply is what it is. Besides, I've moved beyond my "militant atheist" stance (hence why I am here).

Yes.

Richard Dawkins is just the top of the iceberg. He is the "star" of Atheism. While you may find his work a bit boring, it provides views to justify the "why I'm an Atheist". James Randi is worth a view, also Penn & Teller should be mentioned when talking about Atheism. Not so much for actual Atheism, but for the debunking of paranormal events and attempts to erase bullshit out of most peoples mind.


It is important, to me at least, that if you put on a label like Satanist, Atheist,.. that a person should at least have the knowledge to know WHY to use this label. A person should be capable of explaining his/her choice, and with explaining I mean going a tat further then summing up the general definition followed by "and I agree with it". The personal motivation within the explanation should distinguish the individuals from the herd.

The motivation for a belief, or choice of label, is the most important factor to show a person truly indentificates himself/herself with the label or with his/her belief.

Within Satanism this disntinction is clear. Persons like Magister Nemo, Nadramia,.. can motivate their "beliefs" whereas pseuds simply put on the label and remain silent when asked a few "deeper" questions.

But more on topic I would like to share a little article -->
clickie

Well, being a Satanist is a bit more involved than simply not believing in God, but anyway...

I believe that you cannot prove with 100% certainty that God does or does not exist--Dawkins hasn't, either. I choose to side with science, though I admit that the theories of evolution, the big bang theory, etc. do have their flaws. However, they are not as flawed as the theory of creationism, so in my opinion they make more sense and thus are more probable. Really, when it comes to this subject all you can talk about are probabilities, which is exactly what Dawkins does. He hardly proves anything, which is probably what bores me most about his book.

Plus, trying to defend your disbelief in God to someone who does believe in God is utterly futile. You can go on for days on end and it still won't accomplish anything. I have learned this from far too many experiences. At this stage in my life I have learned the virtue of agreeing to disagree. Life's too short to fight and argue with people on a constant basis, especially on the subjects of religion and spirituality. I don't feel the need to defend myself anymore. I know what I am and why I am and that's all that matters to me.

Say, what's going on with Haiti...?

Exactly.Satanism doesn't need the existence of Christianity to function.It will be operating long after common sense and carnal delights win out,and make it a small chapter in a history book.

Count me in as apathetic. Not gleeful. No pleasure in it. Just don't care.

I give to "charity" when I care.
I gave if I cared.

Usually I only donate money to what helps me or the people I care for.
Generally speaking? I rarely donate money.

I especially don't care for people who are living on land that has been marked as possibly dangerous due to possible earthquakes, tsunamis, vulcanoes and whatnot.
If an earthquake doesn't wise them up, surely sending money will not help.

Edit: Neither do the givers by the way.

What we need is MORE earthquakes.

I admire how mother nature culls the population in her special ways. I'm not saying I'm glad all those people are dead or that they deserved it, but I don't exactly empathize with them either.

*shrug*

Earthquakes leave too much mess behind and they are not very effective at population control.

We need a small asteroid.

Read this: Haiti Enviroment.
Would I say they deserved it? No.
But they sure as hell could've seen this natural disaster, of any for that matter, coming!
Like I said in a earlier post, it's places like this that won't wise up.
If you value your life, why stay in a place that is practically unsafe?

Oh jolly, isn't nature fun!?

Damn! If there is a God he definitely doesn't like Haiti too much. Maybe Pat Robertson is onto something...

>>If you value your life, why stay in a place that is practically unsafe?

Even though I am indifferent about the Haiti issue currently, it is rather ignorant to proclaim a nation of extreme poverty to try to relocate to a better area when the means to do so are enormously scarce.