Haliphron wrote:
ORLY..........so what exactly is the definition of Satanism? If things have arbitrary definitions based on different frame of referrence than as far as logic and consistency is concerned they're effectively meaningless and arbitrary!
Well, I would argue that Satanism could be taken as servitude to the devil or perhaps even some reverence for the perversions of the devil(it could be argued that Atheists are idolators and that is why they reject God), just as Christianity could be taken as servitude to God. The issue of arbitrary definitions only is an issue when you are working within a system, definitions are globally arbitrary, but they must be systemically coherent.
Quote:
This almost comes across to me as a being in the same vein as postmodernism, which claims incorrectly that truth, facts, and definitions are relative. What prompts you to be an apologist for christian fundamentalists and their blatantly irrational(nottomention inconsistent)beliefs might I ask? Satanism is clearly the reverrence for and/or active worship of Satan. This cannot apply to atheists as Satan and God are mythical beings that are excluded from the atheist worldview. End of Story.

Well, it is in the same vein of postmodernism, and that does not make it wrong. Truth, facts, and definitions can be understood as relative to the system that one is currently accepting for those things. How could they not be? Definitions are an arbitrary human invention, it can be bent and twisted according to our will and system, and to be honest, most words have multiple definitions, some of which are only used by special groups of people. Facts are merely the output of an epistemic system, the issue is that there cannot be a meta-epistemology because how does one stand above one's own ability to gain knowledge and analyze it neutrally? This means that epistemology can be taken as an output from whatever epistemology a being arbitrarily chooses to accept. What about truth? Still a part of the epistemology on the nature of that truth and so on and so forth, if truth is the output of a system of knowing, and the system of knowing cannot be critiqued other than on consistency to itself or the arbitrary intuitions of man, then truth continues onto arbitrariness. Everything is thus as clear as mud.