High Magus Gilmore was correct, Satanism does have its roots in Epicureanism. And yes, Lavey did borrow many elements of Epicureanism in the Satanic philosophy. One note of interest, however, is that Lavey borrowed from many
different philosophies and religions when constructing the Satanic philosophy. After all, if Satanism was strictly Epicurean and did not vary from the philosophy at all, it would not be Satanism, it would be Epicureanism (albeit in a new package).
I love Hellenistic philosophy and Epicurus in particular, although it does seem to have some more objectionable content, I think there's a lot of undefiled wisdom (to borrow a phrase) to be gained from the classics.
I think that's true. There are always many treasures to be gleaned from philosophies of the past. Personally, I don't think Doktor Lavey meant to cull all of the good parts out of Epicureanism and throw the rest to the dogs; I think he selected a few fundamentals and modified them into a philosophy that would be relevant and useful. As Satanism is comprised of so many different ideas, it is likely--if not inevitable--that certain equally excellent ideas failed to make the final cut.
Please note that I am not an expert on Satanism or Epicureanism by any means; posts by other members will provide a clearer answer.