That’s only true if you think that the belief in god is more of a problem than any of the undesirable things that these guys are doing.

Personally, I view the belief in some “higher power” and the type of egalitarian, “we should all put aside our differences and hold hands in universal acceptance” lack of standards that these guys seem to be cultivating, to be equally repulsive. The way that I see it, these guys just represent one undesirable idea, instead of another.

Altruistic atheists make me scatch my head, partly out of bewilderment, and partly because they make my skin crawl. I call them The Lambs of Darwin. They take Jesus off the Cross but leave the Cross standing, and nail Lucy to it.

Speaking of sig worthy quotes…

It might be an interesting chicken and egg discussion whether one follows from the other, but in my opinion at least a big part of the problem lies in a metaphysical acceptance of the principle that there exists an ultimate authority outside of yourself. In a grey fog of psycho-political battle over this issue, I think it a relative improvement if this magical authority is thought to be "reality" rather than "God".

I do understand what you’re saying and I agree, so long as what we’re talking about is actually “reality”. Earlier in this thread I asked “Just what “reality” have these guys been living in? “. Aside from being humorous, I was also trying to point out the fact that a religion based on reality is only valid if it is, well, realistic. If it’s not, then the “reality” that is being discussed is nothing more than a fantasy, much like the fictions of spiritual religions. And in a worst case scenario, that fictional version of reality can also be manipulated in a similar way as the “word of God” often is.

Some of their goals, attitudes and values don’t seem particularly realistic to me and could be interpreted as merely being a secular version of the same basic types of values that we see in various spiritual religions. Part of the problem really comes down to what Machismo was expressing above.

What I should explain, is that in some ways, spiritual religious values and attitudes that are repackaged in secular or atheist dressing have their own set of potential problems for the simple reason that they are not blatantly religious. Basically, it makes them sneakier and they can become an “easier sell” for some people and this can make it easier for these things to become public policy. You could argue that this has already been happening, to a certain extent. I see something potentially problematic in being too complacent about this sort of thing.

It has become apparent that taking “God” out of the equation, doesn’t really cause people to dump these other types of cultural and behavioral indoctrination which had previously been associated with spiritual religion. This is why I feel it’s equally important to condemn those types of attitudes and values themselves.

Of course, I do understand that this could be seen as more of a slow progression toward something even better and taking god out first, might be a step in the right direction. But I do think that there’s a good chance that he might get replaced with something more abstract, but equally repressive and detrimental. After all, he is a fictional creation and designed to fill some very irrational needs that many people have. I assume that he’s more easily replaceable than the human psychological tendencies which created him.

I also find it scary that a satanist can be so taken by what a weed head on the Internet wrote. There is nothing 'real' about what the Church of Reality states in their website.


no matter how stupid or ridiculous?


sorry, whose authority are you talking about?


not in my view.

Anton LaVey wrote in TSB:
In recent years there has been an attempt to humanize the spiritual concept of Christianity.
Anton LaVey wrote about it in the 60's and it is still happening today and what a classic example the Church of Reality is.


Does it make any difference what it is called if it is still thought about in the same way? If you spent a bit more time studying and reading maybe you would have noticed how 'unreal' the Church of Reality actually is. Or maybe you have and you can further explain what l still don't understand:
The Church of Reality is a religion based on the practice of Realism, which means believing in everything that is real.
Actually don't bother l don't need to know anything else about the CoR!


I would like to refer you to Peter H Gilmores opening words in his essay 'A Primer For Fledgling Misanthropologists'
Satanists are Pragmatists, who do their best to see the world around them in as unclouded a manner as is possible; we call that "undefiled wisdom". Then we use this understanding to make the best from life for ourselves as well as those whom we cherish. Being filled with disgust at the spectacle of the milling hordes that cover our lovely globe and soil it with their presence, we try to minimize our contact with those gullible denizens whom we call "the herd".

I am a Satanist, l worship the God within me and l get out as often as l want to!

A lot more could be said about the CoR but I'm Perfecting, John Prophet and Machismo have made some excellent comments.

Hail Satan!
Midnight

Sounds like the same proselytization that Evangelical Christians spew out.



2. Strict taxation of all churches—If churches were taxed for all their income and property, they’d crumble overnight of their own obsolescence, and the National Debt would be wiped out as quickly. The productive, the creative, the resourceful should be subsidized. So long as the useless and incompetent are getting paid, they should be heavily taxed. PENTAGONAL REVISIONISM A FIVE POINT PROGRAM. This is one key reason of the many that this "church of reality" is shit! Because The Church of Satan has the balls to stand upon a foundation in complete opposition of all the other religions. The Church of Reality sounds too much like Christianity to me.

I can't join you in that. But at least your thread prompted my new sig!

Here's a pic I like and which encapsulates my reaction to the Church of Reality - to it, not to you, as I know full well you don't personally subscribe to the perspective you offered for consideration, but are merely presenting it as a possible halfway house for disaffected theists, to whom I, by contrast, would offer this pic and its message.