destroying satanists

Post Reply New Topic

Your reasoning seems to be suited towards LaVey Satanism, which focuses very strongly on individuality. Does it apply equally well towards other forms of Satanism that promote worship of Satan as a deity?

i've honestly never looked into that idiocy so i can't say. it would appear to me that people who worship the christian depicted "satan" as a deity are only giving power to christianity and basically acknowledging that they are right in their beliefs. that seems a little bit on the stupid side to me...something that a hot topic "satanist" would be into.

That actually makes perfect sense. Since I see these things through a Catholic lens, as it were, it's not a conclusion that I would have drawn by myself.

one of the funniest parts in the movie spawn is where the devil worshippers are trying to conjure up demons and violator appears and comments "why do we always get the stupid ones?"

many of those so called "satanists", wiccans, norse god followers, new age "thinkers" are just trying out fad/ publicity religions..

i've run across a few of those. generally a bunch of numbskull idiots looking for others to define their lives for them.

I thought it was only us intolerant Christians who made this kind of generalisation. Are not several diverse movements packed together here as generic "pagans"? You may have a point about the popular trends, for example at times an interest in all things "Celtic," at times in generic "eastern" mysticism which puts together disparate traditions in a syncretistic fashion that may at times water down the actual nature of the original teachings. Of course, with regard to the Norse, whether you wish to revive unadulterated Odinism is perhaps seriously open to question... Also given that Christianity in earlier times "accommodated" pagan elements in some traditions (while being intolerant to other forms of dissent, even if from Christians of a less syncretistic stripe) I am probably on weak ground here.

The motives of every individual in joining a movement may not be so readily reducible. To be honest I might be rather inclined to agree with you with regard to New Age, but I have no source of empirical knowledge as to what may motivate people to join, or, in some cases, dabble in these movements.

From the orthodox Christian standing these movements would tend to be categorised as generically occult and therefore diabolical. Ergo from the standpoint of the atheists it is logical to see the potential and, historically and recently, actual threat in Christians, while perhaps deriding the beliefs for whom tolerance must be upheld. Voltaire's principal of "I despise what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say." Good quote, though the French Enlightenment philosopher was premature in thinking the Bible would soon be out of print due to lack of interest...

Actually, come to think of it, it doesn't make sense.

Why bother to name a religion after a deity that doesn't exist. Why not call it LaVey Atheism or LaVey Humanism or LaVeism?

I made a similar point in another thread and was dissatisfied with the answer.

You are almost all generalizing satanism with other beliefs and religions,

the origins of satanism came out of the Cristian faith,

the original satanism as a faith was based on the belief
that god "sent" the angel Lucifer to place fears and sins
before humanity as a test of man and to oversee hell,
and to get people to want to follow god out of fear,
for if there was no evil or hell people would
have little inclinations to want to follow the god.

lavey had a flare for the theatrical. it is also a jab at christianity. and if you want to get into the etymology of it the word satan means "accuser" or "adversary" both of which the philosophy stands for...much of the satanic bible is accusatory in nature against organized religion and the herd mentality that it breeds. the name is pretty natural considering the philosophy is quite contrary to christianity in many ways (though lavey was very much against the free love movement).


it's about as good of an answer as you'll probably get.

Actually, the official tangent has to do wih LaVey Satanism, specifically.

When the thread started, I took issue with the OP calling atheists, satanists. Flagg is an atheist, and so is Kenm as far as I can tell. I actually thought that all 3 of the people mentioned were atheists, but as it turns out skafather84 is a LaVey Satanist (which I think is glorified atheism, anyway).

In any event, I think that skafather84 being a LaVey Satanist isn't particularly relevent, since the whole thread was started because these 3 individuals merely expressed their disagreement with certain evangelical Christian beliefs. I actually said something similar to these 3 in the same thread, so I am surprised that I am not being called out as a Satanist (despite being Roman Catholic).

The ad hominem attack, is just more evidence to the case that religious people tend to be less moral and ethical than non-religious people. But some religions tend to be highly moral, such as those eastern philosphy ones. You dont have to even believe in their million+ gods, you just have to follow teachings about seeking elightenment and they let you in. Not my cup of tea, but hey atleast they are exclusive like other religions.

No you aren't.

LikedCalico and I are both LaVey.

Though I tend to disargee with the weak people idea and revenge.

People who call themselves satanists just make me yawn. Seems like a obvious dig at christianity pure and simple.

It's bad enough that christians shove their religion down your throat without the anti-christians doing the same. Move on!

Actually againist LaVey Satanist law to try to convert people.