Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

LaVeyan Satanism

Options
24

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 924 ✭✭✭Elliemental


    Well, to believe in Satan, you also must believe in God. One validates the other, so IMO LaVey (and I actually read his Satanic Bible a few years back!), is just as misguided as any Christian.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    Well, to believe in Satan, you also must believe in God. One validates the other, so IMO LaVey (and I actually read his Satanic Bible a few years back!), is just as misguided as any Christian.


    You should probably go back and read the book because ... yep ... your ignorance is showing (cover it up quick before someone else notices). :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Well, to believe in Satan, you also must believe in God. One validates the other, so IMO LaVey (and I actually read his Satanic Bible a few years back!), is just as misguided as any Christian.

    And Elliemental stumbles at the gate! LaVey Satanists don't believe in a literal Satan so I seriously doubt you've read the book, and if you have then I mourn for your reading comprehension.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,354 ✭✭✭Urizen


    I see your reading skills have already been discussed. Too bad. Have some good stuff stored up for that.

    In response to the other thing. I've been a Satanist for 3 years now. I've spent that time trying to explain to people what the philosophy is, calming those who get abused and, as you so aptly put it, dispelling ignorance.

    But when you're met with this kind of attitude, day after day, patience tends to wear down now and then. Believe me, that little rant was tame. There's a hell of a lot worse out there than the one who started this up.

    So I may come off defensive, I admit. Just know that it's justified.

    Zillah. Pro Satanist you say.
    liah wrote: »
    to be honest it just seems like a Goth's version of Atheism, simply putting on the Satanism tag to appear "dark" or whatever the whole Goth appeal is, and then magic thrown into the mix for the hell of it.

    Maybe you have a different notion of approval than I do.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    Urizen wrote: »
    I see your reading skills have already been discussed. Too bad. Have some good stuff stored up for that.

    In response to the other thing. I've been a Satanist for 3 years now. I've spent that time trying to explain to people what the philosophy is, calming those who get abused and, as you so aptly put it, dispelling ignorance.

    But when you're met with this kind of attitude, day after day, patience tends to wear down now and then. Believe me, that little rant was tame. There's a hell of a lot worse out there than the one who started this up.

    So I may come off defensive, I admit. Just know that it's justified.

    Zillah. Pro Satanist you say.



    Maybe you have a different notion of approval than I do.

    Bro, believe me. I have been through this with Satanism on boards.ie before. That IS tolerant as far as it goes.

    In fairness though, its not as if the trappings arent deliberately misleading is it? The theatrics, the resonant tones in the chamber, the invocation of the four corners, the list of infernal names ... when you throw in the bullheaded individualism and tendency towards spiteful humor its no suprise that everyone assumes that every satanist is an atheist with a Joss Whdeon fixation.*

    As galling as it is to be confronted with the same blind ignorance and stereotyping many of its detractors claim is directed at them by others, Satanists must accept that it is all part of the show. Its a great way to find out who is actually a jerk worthy of disdain and who is capable of at least independent thought.

    At least no one is demanding that all mentions of the 'divil be removed from sig's and slapping people with bans for expressing an opinion ... :rolleyes:

    *I am well aware of my love of Buffy and Firefly it neednt be pointed out.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,354 ✭✭✭Urizen


    Suppose. It's progress from threats and verbal abuse, at least.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 924 ✭✭✭Elliemental


    Zillah wrote: »
    And Elliemental stumbles at the gate! LaVey Satanists don't believe in a literal Satan so I seriously doubt you've read the book, and if you have then I mourn for your reading comprehension.


    Give us a break, it was about 15 years ago now, an i`m sorry, but there are some who took this guy rather literally (one such person led me to the book in the first place).


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    Give us a break, it was about 15 years ago now, an i`m sorry, but there are some who took this guy rather literally (one such person led me to the book in the first place).

    Erm ... his point is that you didnt read it at all or didnt read it properly because what you said is the antithesis of its content...

    ... but by all means keep digging the pit you are in.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 924 ✭✭✭Elliemental


    Erm ... his point is that you didnt read it at all or didnt read it properly because what you said is the antithesis of its content...

    ... but by all means keep digging the pit you are in.


    FFS! :rolleyes: I read it properly, but a very long time ago, and tbh remember very little of it, so I plead forgiveness for making a mistake. And really, it`s such a small matter, a hardly think i`m digging myself into a pit. It`s not like I now have go out and commit hara-kiri now is it. Get a life!


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    FFS! :rolleyes: I read it properly, but a very long time ago, and tbh remember very little of it, so I plead forgiveness for making a mistake. And really, it`s such a small matter, a hardly think i`m digging myself into a pit. It`s not like I now have go out and commit hara-kiri now is it. Get a life!

    Considering it is one of the single most stand out parts of its content it is very suprising that you dont remember why the statement you made (quoted below) lends to the evidence that you didnt actually read the book and made a statement from an assumption rather than from a position of knowledge.
    Well, to believe in Satan, you also must believe in God. One validates the other, so IMO LaVey (and I actually read his Satanic Bible a few years back!), is just as misguided as any Christian.

    I've highlighted the major problem so you can correct your knowledge gap more easily.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 924 ✭✭✭Elliemental


    Considering it is one of the single most stand out parts of its content it is very suprising that you dont remember why the statement you made (quoted below) lends to the evidence that you didnt actually read the book and made a statement from an assumption rather than from a position of knowledge.



    I've highlighted the major problem so you can correct your knowledge gap more easily.


    And i`ll highlight the most important part of my last post, that may help you to move on from this sorry episode:
    FFS! rolleyes.gif I read it properly, but a very long time ago, and tbh remember very little of it, so I plead forgiveness for making a mistake. And really, it`s such a small matter, a hardly think i`m digging myself into a pit. It`s not like I now have go out and commit hara-kiri now is it. Get a life!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    You're certainly furthering the Satanist cause by being so bloody aggressive, aren't you, Urizen?

    At least I made an effort to look it up and learn about it. All I said was what it seems like to me. I didn't say "oh it's just a retarded religion for a bunch of wannabe goth idiots" now did I? I said it seems like (aka, not IS) a goth's version of Atheism, because essentially it's Atheism made dark and anti-Bible, now, isn't it? At the core? To deny that would be a bit odd. I know it's about ceremony and ritual but honestly.. what's the point?

    If you don't believe in god, you don't believe in god, what's the point in dressing it up with the trappings of religion-- especially when the motive is to go against a specific religion.

    All I'm saying is that it reminds me of the days in highschool when the "goths" were going around talking about being Satanists and wiccans and pagans and all the like just to make themselves feel so anti-Christian and moody and dark, to feel like they were going against the grain.

    Still, my point is: you're giving out because no one's educating themselves about it, well, I at least looked it up and made an effort to understand it-- and I said multiple times in the post I agree with quite a bit of it, I just don't see the point of all the magicky ceremonial religious bits, why not just be? Why subscribe? Especially when its followers are apparently so bloody venomous to people who are at least making an attempt, regardless of their opinion at the end of it all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    And i`ll highlight the most important part of my last post, that may help you to move on from this sorry episode:

    Ooooooh ... someones wounded ego is showing. :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    liah wrote: »
    You're certainly furthering the Satanist cause by being so bloody aggressive, aren't you, Urizen?

    At least I made an effort to look it up and learn about it. All I said was what it seems like to me. I didn't say "oh it's just a retarded religion for a bunch of wannabe goth idiots" now did I? I said it seems like (aka, not IS) a goth's version of Atheism, because essentially it's Atheism made dark and anti-Bible, now, isn't it? At the core? To deny that would be a bit odd. I know it's about ceremony and ritual but honestly.. what's the point?

    Go back and read a few posts by persons who are better informed than yourself. Frankly getting into a row with someone over a topic you've only a passing familiarity with is daft for both those involved.

    You have to admit, that your characterisation wasnt exactly a friendly one now was it? Attemtping to moderate your tone does little to hide the opinion you were trying to convey.
    liah wrote: »
    If you don't believe in god, you don't believe in god, what's the point in dressing it up with the trappings of religion-- especially when the motive is to go against a specific religion.

    Again ... this has been explained. Don't be a lazy reactionist, go and read the information. There have been at least 2 threads about satanism on boards before, I know because I started them both.
    liah wrote: »
    All I'm saying is that it reminds me of the days in highschool when the "goths" were going around talking about being Satanists and wiccans and pagans and all the like just to make themselves feel so anti-Christian and moody and dark, to feel like they were going against the grain.

    Well at least you can admit that you are allowing your past prejudices and encounters to colour your present ones.

    Stop for a second and ask yourself a question. If it looks like a duck and it sounds like a duck but has a degree from MIT and holds down a day job as a marketting consultant for a multi-national ... is it actually a duck? Or someone in a duck-suit?
    liah wrote: »
    Still, my point is: you're giving out because no one's educating themselves about it, well, I at least looked it up and made an effort to understand it-- and I said multiple times in the post I agree with quite a bit of it, I just don't see the point of all the magicky ceremonial religious bits, why not just be? Why subscribe? Especially when its followers are apparently so bloody venomous to people who are at least making an attempt, regardless of their opinion at the end of it all.

    You made a small effort but clearly didnt do enough. You have repeatedly stated that you "dont get why" about the ceremonies or the garb or the gothic themes. Its not as if this is arcane knowledge we're dealing with here. It's all fairly well explained in earlier posts on this thread.

    As for being venomous. Frankly, painting the entire group with that brush smacks of someone who is reacting rather than thinking. Christians are known to be venomous towards atheists - this doesnt mean that all christians are venomous. Some muslims strap dynamite to themselves asnd blow up innocent children - this doesnt mean that all muslims are jihadi.

    Some Satanists are venomous, in fact it is a tennet of the philosophy to be so towards those whom annoy you, however it doesnt mean that all satanists are inherently vitriolic.

    My point is, Urizen jumped the gun a fair bit by being reactionary to the comments you made - however you are just as guilty of being arrogant and condescending. Urizen has explained his reasons for being annoyed (ones I can understand), he's reletively new to the lifestyle. He bit his tongue back a few posts ago. He reacted to a post because he didnt read it fully, you reacted to a post of his because you obviously hadnt read the thread fully.

    Equality, its an amazing thing in action ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 924 ✭✭✭Elliemental


    Ooooooh ... someones wounded ego is showing. :D


    You remind me way too much of my old Sociology lecturer. Pedantry of the highest order;)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    I really regret not supported the satanism forum on feedback now so that this retarded **** would be kept somewhere else.

    for gods sake people, satanism? how daring.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    I really regret not supported the satanism forum on feedback now so that this retarded **** would be kept somewhere else.

    for gods sake people, satanism? how daring.

    Careful now, they'll start frowning in your direction soon...


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,354 ✭✭✭Urizen


    *frowns*

    Hivemind, perfect. Exactly right. Kudos.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    Go back and read a few posts by persons who are better informed than yourself. Frankly getting into a row with someone over a topic you've only a passing familiarity with is daft for both those involved.

    You have to admit, that your characterisation wasnt exactly a friendly one now was it? Attemtping to moderate your tone does little to hide the opinion you were trying to convey.



    Again ... this has been explained. Don't be a lazy reactionist, go and read the information. There have been at least 2 threads about satanism on boards before, I know because I started them both.



    Well at least you can admit that you are allowing your past prejudices and encounters to colour your present ones.

    Stop for a second and ask yourself a question. If it looks like a duck and it sounds like a duck but has a degree from MIT and holds down a day job as a marketting consultant for a multi-national ... is it actually a duck? Or someone in a duck-suit?



    You made a small effort but clearly didnt do enough. You have repeatedly stated that you "dont get why" about the ceremonies or the garb or the gothic themes. Its not as if this is arcane knowledge we're dealing with here. It's all fairly well explained in earlier posts on this thread.

    As for being venomous. Frankly, painting the entire group with that brush smacks of someone who is reacting rather than thinking. Christians are known to be venomous towards atheists - this doesnt mean that all christians are venomous. Some muslims strap dynamite to themselves asnd blow up innocent children - this doesnt mean that all muslims are jihadi.

    Some Satanists are venomous, in fact it is a tennet of the philosophy to be so towards those whom annoy you, however it doesnt mean that all satanists are inherently vitriolic.

    My point is, Urizen jumped the gun a fair bit by being reactionary to the comments you made - however you are just as guilty of being arrogant and condescending. Urizen has explained his reasons for being annoyed (ones I can understand), he's reletively new to the lifestyle. He bit his tongue back a few posts ago. He reacted to a post because he didnt read it fully, you reacted to a post of his because you obviously hadnt read the thread fully.

    Equality, its an amazing thing in action ;)

    This is probably one of the most ridiculous posts I've read on boards (and that includes stuff by mysterious).

    a) My ONLY two posts in the thread are 1) the initial post and 2) the post where I explained that what I said wasn't offensive, how on EARTH is that starting a row..? Wtf?! Defensive much?

    b) It wasn't exactly an unfriendly one, either. It was pretty moderate, considering this is the Atheism forum and not a religious one, if you think that was being offensive you really need a reality check. It was a harmless comment yet you went bloody nuts about it. I gave my point of view, that's what it looks like to me, deal with it.

    c) Why would I bother studying a religion I find to be absolutely ridiculous, in the same way I find Scientology (and Christianity, and basically any other religion, ever) ridiculous? I just found a wikipedia article, thought it was interesting, and posted it up here, it doesn't mean I'm attacking your religion, just means I find it weird because it's basically just Atheism all dressed up in a ceremonial coat. I couldn't be bothered looking up boatloads of different posts here because honestly.. I just plain don't care enough. It was originally meant for another thread anyway.

    d) Past "prejudices?" There's a BIG difference between factual observation and prejudice. The kids during highschool were idiots who just wanted to be all dark and cool and mysterious and have all these silly little rituals while denouncing mainstream Christianity and slapped on the Satanism label to freak people out. I said it REMINDS ME OF, I didn't say it WAS, and you can call that "moderating my comments" all you bloody well please but I know what I'm saying and I know the intent behind it, so don't put words into my mouth. I have the right to believe Satanism is silly. Nought to do with prejudice, mostly to do with the fact that I think all religion is silly. Makes no difference to how I view the followers as individuals.
    Me saying I "don't get why" isn't so much saying I don't understand. It's saying it's not my ideal and in my view it's utterly useless, pointless, and trivial, as is any other religion or cult or sect or whatever the hell you'd like to call it.

    e) When on earth did I paint anyone with any brush in my original post? I painted the idea of the religion with a brush, sure, same way as I paint any other, but when did I target any individual, ever? And as for my second post, I was speaking to Urizen and Urizen alone, implying that he may have more success in making people understand things about his version of Satanism if he didn't attack anyone who didn't immediately bow down to his viewpoint of it.

    Absolutely stupid discussion tbh. I never once insulted anyone who followed the religion, I simply stated how it appeared to me, so terribly sorry if it was "condescending" but it's the same bloody way I'd speak about Scientology (and I reckon most people here would too), and because I stated my view of it I immediately got jumped all over for one single post.

    Ridiculous.

    Edited to add, my post is FAR, FAR from the most offensive in the thread, yet I was the only one targeted. Interesting. :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    liah wrote: »
    This is probably one of the most ridiculous posts I've read on boards (and that includes stuff by mysterious).

    a) My ONLY two posts in the thread are 1) the initial post and 2) the post where I explained that what I said wasn't offensive, how on EARTH is that starting a row..? Wtf?! Defensive much?

    b) It wasn't exactly an unfriendly one, either. It was pretty moderate, considering this is the Atheism forum and not a religious one, if you think that was being offensive you really need a reality check. It was a harmless comment yet you went bloody nuts about it. I gave my point of view, that's what it looks like to me, deal with it.

    c) Why would I bother studying a religion I find to be absolutely ridiculous, in the same way I find Scientology (and Christianity, and basically any other religion, ever) ridiculous? I just found a wikipedia article, thought it was interesting, and posted it up here, it doesn't mean I'm attacking your religion, just means I find it weird because it's basically just Atheism all dressed up in a ceremonial coat. I couldn't be bothered looking up boatloads of different posts here because honestly.. I just plain don't care enough. It was originally meant for another thread anyway.

    d) Past "prejudices?" There's a BIG difference between factual observation and prejudice. The kids during highschool were idiots who just wanted to be all dark and cool and mysterious and have all these silly little rituals while denouncing mainstream Christianity and slapped on the Satanism label to freak people out. I said it REMINDS ME OF, I didn't say it WAS, and you can call that "moderating my comments" all you bloody well please but I know what I'm saying and I know the intent behind it, so don't put words into my mouth. I have the right to believe Satanism is silly. Nought to do with prejudice, mostly to do with the fact that I think all religion is silly. Makes no difference to how I view the followers as individuals.
    Me saying I "don't get why" isn't so much saying I don't understand. It's saying it's not my ideal and in my view it's utterly useless, pointless, and trivial, as is any other religion or cult or sect or whatever the hell you'd like to call it.

    e) When on earth did I paint anyone with any brush in my original post? I painted the idea of the religion with a brush, sure, same way as I paint any other, but when did I target any individual, ever? And as for my second post, I was speaking to Urizen and Urizen alone, implying that he may have more success in making people understand things about his version of Satanism if he didn't attack anyone who didn't immediately bow down to his viewpoint of it.

    Absolutely stupid discussion tbh. I never once insulted anyone who followed the religion, I simply stated how it appeared to me, so terribly sorry if it was "condescending" but it's the same bloody way I'd speak about Scientology (and I reckon most people here would too), and because I stated my view of it I immediately got jumped all over for one single post.

    Ridiculous.

    Edited to add, my post is FAR, FAR from the most offensive in the thread, yet I was the only one targeted. Interesting. :rolleyes:

    Methinks the lady doth protest too much ...


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    after the novel sized post you made? srs?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    It's fairly alright, if not very tongue-in-cheek, and the magic bit is a bit funky.
    Which I find interesting. Satan as a representation of a collective force rather than a being. Only thing I hate is that stupid capitalization of "He," but that's a petty hate.
    other than the whole magic thing, it seems relatively reasonable and not at all like the stereotype of Satanism and quite a lot more like simple Atheism with an anti-Christian targeted twist and a touch of narcissism.


    Just figured I'd quote some bits of my oh-so-offensive original post.

    As you can quite clearly read, I had no problem with LaVeyan satanism. I agreed with a lot of it and said so.

    The main issue I have with Atheistic Satanism is the label it puts on the rest of us Atheists. Uneducated people (take the Bible belt in the States or that recent thread in PI for example) are going to make the association between Atheism and Satanism, they're not going to know the details, and they're immediately going to think fire, brimstone, human sacrifices and bloody crosses. That is not a good image for Atheism. You can go around calling them ignorant for not learning about your religion all you want, but who the hell has time to learn about every single denomination of every single religion out there? That is why I'm generally opposed to anything that "dresses up" Atheism and puts it in a nice, neat little religious package-- it goes against everything I stand for as an Atheist.

    It doesn't appeal to me and I made that clear enough, but I was not being offensive in the slightest. Definitely not near offensive enough to be addressed like I was by Urizen after my only post.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    liah wrote: »
    Just figured I'd quote some bits of my oh-so-offensive original post.

    As you can quite clearly read, I had no problem with LaVeyan satanism. I agreed with a lot of it and said so.

    The main issue I have with Atheistic Satanism is the label it puts on the rest of us Atheists. Uneducated people (take the Bible belt in the States or that recent thread in PI for example) are going to make the association between Atheism and Satanism, they're not going to know the details, and they're immediately going to think fire, brimstone, human sacrifices and bloody crosses. That is not a good image for Atheism. You can go around calling them ignorant for not learning about your religion all you want, but who the hell has time to learn about every single denomination of every single religion out there? That is why I'm generally opposed to anything that "dresses up" Atheism and puts it in a nice, neat little religious package-- it goes against everything I stand for as an Atheist.

    It doesn't appeal to me and I made that clear enough, but I was not being offensive in the slightest. Definitely not near offensive enough to be addressed like I was by Urizen after my only post.

    Uh-huh. You're jumping down the throat of one group because another group thinks it makes your group sound scary.

    ... does that seem entirely rational to you?

    Frankly, you are more an amusement than anything else Liah, you're jumping up and down saying "how dare you misquopte me and take me out of context" when that is precisely what you did to Satanism and to myself. It's actually rather comical.

    For your benefit I will point out that I asked you to read a few posts in the thread you started.

    Do you get that? Its the thread YOU started. These are posts YOU have generated. Thats really all you had to do. Instead you are throwing your toys out of the pram in a desperate attempt to win-by-submission in the great keyboard arena.

    Atheists, by the nature of their label, are connected by only a single fact: They dont believe in a supernatural or personal god. Beyond this fact there are as many personal philosophies, politics, personal beliefs and ethics as there are atheists. Satanists, by and large, have no belief in the supernatural nor in a personal god beyond that of a metaphor for ones self. Therefore, whether you like it or not, they are atheists. Just no more representative of atheists as a whole than any other individual atheist.

    I would reccomend going back and reading those posts. You'll note the names of those redressing Urizen's post that you had such a problem with. If you can't handle a little personal criticism then perhaps you shouldnt be involving yourself in discussions of this calibre?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    Uh-huh. You're jumping down the throat of one group because another group thinks it makes your group sound scary.

    ... does that seem entirely rational to you?

    Frankly, you are more an amusement than anything else Liah, you're jumping up and down saying "how dare you misquopte me and take me out of context" when that is precisely what you did to Satanism and to myself. It's actually rather comical.

    For your benefit I will point out that I asked you to read a few posts in the thread you started.

    Do you get that? Its the thread YOU started. These are posts YOU have generated. Thats really all you had to do. Instead you are throwing your toys out of the pram in a desperate attempt to win-by-submission in the great keyboard arena.

    Atheists, by the nature of their label, are connected by only a single fact: They dont believe in a supernatural or personal god. Beyond this fact there are as many personal philosophies, politics, personal beliefs and ethics as there are atheists. Satanists, by and large, have no belief in the supernatural nor in a personal god beyond that of a metaphor for ones self. Therefore, whether you like it or not, they are atheists. Just no more representative of atheists as a whole than any other individual atheist.

    I would reccomend going back and reading those posts. You'll note the names of those redressing Urizen's post that you had such a problem with. If you can't handle a little personal criticism then perhaps you shouldnt be involving yourself in discussions of this calibre?

    You're joking, right?

    I wasn't the one jumping down people's throats. I stated an inoffensive position that someone got completely worked up about for no reason. I then question why he got so defensive, and then you proceed to become more defensive. I was simply trying to lay out things in a crystal clear manner so nobody could possibly take it for more than what it is, but alas, you've outdone yourself trying to make mountains out of molehills yet again. Bravo.

    I'm also finding it odd how you keep saying I need to read posts by other people, while stating that it was the thread that I started.. Yes; I started it. Funny thing is, the comments that were found to be offensive were in the original post. Am I supposed to time travel, read the posts that would be written in retaliation to my original, then time travel back again to revise it and make it as PoliticallyCorrect™ as possible? Give me a break. My original post was my ONLY POST til I had to explain to you why I wrote my original post. Notice how I haven't made any indication regarding anything else I've learned from reading the thread, because it is wholly irrelevant-- my entire issue was with how I was treated for being completely inoffensive. I haven't even begun to address the rest of the thread yet.

    And your definition of Atheism is misguided. Down to the very root of the word, atheism isn't necessarily the disbelief in the supernatural or gods; it's the lack of religion, full stop. Thus, Satanism + Atheism = does not compute. Satanism is a religion. Atheism literally means "without religion." One can be spiritual while being an Atheist. One can believe in a greater power while being an Atheist. One cannot follow a religion while being an Atheist.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    liah wrote: »
    You're joking, right?

    I wasn't the one jumping down people's throats. I stated an inoffensive position that someone got completely worked up about for no reason. I then question why he got so defensive, and then you proceed to become more defensive. I was simply trying to lay out things in a crystal clear manner so nobody could possibly take it for more than what it is, but alas, you've outdone yourself trying to make mountains out of molehills yet again. Bravo.

    I'm also finding it odd how you keep saying I need to read posts by other people, while stating that it was the thread that I started.. Yes; I started it. Funny thing is, the comments that were found to be offensive were in the original post. Am I supposed to time travel, read the posts that would be written in retaliation to my original, then time travel back again to revise it and make it as PoliticallyCorrect™ as possible? Give me a break. My original post was my ONLY POST til I had to explain to you why I wrote my original post. Notice how I haven't made any indication regarding anything else I've learned from reading the thread, because it is wholly irrelevant-- my entire issue was with how I was treated for being completely inoffensive. I haven't even begun to address the rest of the thread yet.

    And your definition of Atheism is misguided. Down to the very root of the word, atheism isn't necessarily the disbelief in the supernatural or gods; it's the lack of religion, full stop. Thus, Satanism + Atheism = does not compute. Satanism is a religion. Atheism literally means "without religion." One can be spiritual while being an Atheist. One can believe in a greater power while being an Atheist. One cannot follow a religion while being an Atheist.

    Its a pity, you are probably a really nice person in real life, its just you are coming off as a highly strung, self righteous anthropomorphic migraine right now.

    I'll help you out here because as much as I am enjoying you exhibiting precisely the behaviors you have criticised in others it suits my purposes to do so.

    Your principal errors are;

    1) You display no willingness to accept that something you said may have upset someone yet you demand that no one treat you in a similar way.
    2) You have formed reductionist opinions and expressed them while openly admiting that you have no more than a passing familiarity with the subject.
    3) You have openly stated that you have not read the rest of the thread and apparently care not to.
    4) You are having an argument with someone who went to bat on your behalf.

    Evidence is as follows;
    liah wrote: »
    Found LaVeyan satanism, and to be honest it just seems like a Goth's version of Atheism, simply putting on the Satanism tag to appear "dark" or whatever the whole Goth appeal is, and then magic thrown into the mix for the hell of it.

    You honestly dont see how that is dismissive, reductive and potentially insulting? I have insulted a lot of religions and doctrines so I know it when I see it, this looks an awful lot like it.

    I'm personally not bothered by it but can you see why someone else may feel attacked or reduced?
    liah wrote: »
    I'm not sure what to think of this. I think Atheists parading around under the guise of Satanism for the sake of Gothic appeal can really only give Atheism a bad image and lead to more confusion. Might actually explain a lot about why so many Christians think Atheism and Satanism are one and the same, when in most cases they're not.

    A ridiculous conclusion that removes the responsibility of being a jerk from christians and places it on the shoulders of the Satanist. Your conclusion shows you have only a passing familiarity and is no better than concluding that the jews run all the banks after reading a right-wing web page.

    It is also inconsistant with your own analysis previous to this where you stated
    liah wrote: »
    Again, other than the whole magic thing, it seems relatively reasonable and not at all like the stereotype of Satanism and quite a lot more like simple Atheism with an anti-Christian targeted twist and a touch of narcissism.

    Which is quite a good summary of the philosophy in a "nuts and bolts" kind of way.

    Post 15 explains much of the stuff folks tend not to get upon first contact with the philosophy and would do you well to read as a condensed and accurate explanation (that I wrote it notwithstanding). Posts 16,17,18 and 19 continue the discussion very well, expanding on some aspects.

    Post 29 is where Urizen gets a little upset and vents his/her frustration. He is set stright in posts 30 and 31. He/she kicks off again a little in post 35 which I dealt with in post 36.

    Urizen relaxed and seems to have had a change of heart from all out indignation to contemplating the actual progress made in gaining a better acceptance in post 37.

    In post 43. You return and lay into Urizen who has already dropped the matter and hopefully learned not to be so quick to "smash the other cheek" in favor of getting to the root of the problem before deciding whether its worth verbally battering someone. It has to be said, you were a little late to the party by some 23 and a half hours. More than enough time to read back 5 posts.

    Should I continue answering your declarations and accusations or do you get what I am trying to point out to you?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    Its a pity, you are probably a really nice person in real life, its just you are coming off as a highly strung, self righteous anthropomorphic migraine right now.

    I'll help you out here because as much as I am enjoying you exhibiting precisely the behaviors you have criticised in others it suits my purposes to do so.

    Your principal errors are;

    1) You display no willingness to accept that something you said may have upset someone yet you demand that no one treat you in a similar way.
    2) You have formed reductionist opinions and expressed them while openly admiting that you have no more than a passing familiarity with the subject.
    3) You have openly stated that you have not read the rest of the thread and apparently care not to.
    4) You are having an argument with someone who went to bat on your behalf.

    Evidence is as follows;



    You honestly dont see how that is dismissive, reductive and potentially insulting? I have insulted a lot of religions and doctrines so I know it when I see it, this looks an awful lot like it.

    I'm personally not bothered by it but can you see why someone else may feel attacked or reduced?



    A ridiculous conclusion that removes the responsibility of being a jerk from christians and places it on the shoulders of the Satanist. Your conclusion shows you have only a passing familiarity and is no better than concluding that the jews run all the banks after reading a right-wing web page.

    It is also inconsistant with your own analysis previous to this where you stated



    Which is quite a good summary of the philosophy in a "nuts and bolts" kind of way.

    Post 15 explains much of the stuff folks tend not to get upon first contact with the philosophy and would do you well to read as a condensed and accurate explanation (that I wrote it notwithstanding). Posts 16,17,18 and 19 continue the discussion very well, expanding on some aspects.

    Post 29 is where Urizen gets a little upset and vents his/her frustration. He is set stright in posts 30 and 31. He/she kicks off again a little in post 35 which I dealt with in post 36.

    Urizen relaxed and seems to have had a change of heart from all out indignation to contemplating the actual progress made in gaining a better acceptance in post 37.

    In post 43. You return and lay into Urizen who has already dropped the matter and hopefully learned not to be so quick to "smash the other cheek" in favor of getting to the root of the problem before deciding whether its worth verbally battering someone. It has to be said, you were a little late to the party by some 23 and a half hours. More than enough time to read back 5 posts.

    Should I continue answering your declarations and accusations or do you get what I am trying to point out to you?

    And you aren't? Self-delusion is a beautiful thing. :)

    I'm willing to accept people may be offended by offensive things. Unfortunately, that wasn't an offensive thing.

    I think the major misunderstanding here is that we're talking on two entirely different terms, or at least that's what I've gathered from your rather incoherent and consistently off-topic ramblings.

    When I'm talking about Satanism giving Atheism a bad name, I mean the perceived notion of Satanism. I don't give a damn about the denomination of Satanism, the teachings, whatever the hell you like. I'm saying that people hear the word Satanist and they are going to think the worst. If Atheists start going around saying they're Satanists to "stick it" to the proverbial Christian "man," it's only going to do worse for the Atheist reputation which is currently on incredibly shaky ground as it is. Pairing it with perceived devil-worship is only going to worsen things for the rest of us.

    Do you understand, or am I going to have to keep simplifying until I'm basically writing a children's novel?

    Again, really don't give a damn about the rest of the thread because that is not what any of this is about, so I've really no clue why you're referencing posts made AFTER my original comment while attacking the original comment-- do I really have to break down the fact that I can't time-travel again? Seriously?

    Use your brain, please, and try to focus on the topic at hand.

    I'm actually starting to wonder if you've read a single thing I've said, and if you're confusing someone else with me.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    I'm not entirely sure what a "highly strung, self righteous anthropomorphic migraine" is, but it sounds suspiciously like an insult.

    Careful now, Hivemind.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    liah wrote: »
    When I'm talking about Satanism giving Atheism a bad name

    tbh I don't see many people associating atheism with Satanism (Le Veyan or not).

    People are either going to assume its some new-age stuff and automatically disassociate atheism with it, just as paganism in general is. Or classify is as yet more egocentric psychobabble and dismiss it off hand as general wackiness.

    Either way its doesn't affect atheism one iota. Storm met teacup.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    I know nothing about this
    so...be gentle

    Satan means self?

    He uses the word Satan and not self because he is parodying the church?

    Some of the rules use the expression 'destroy them etc' - is this literal?

    The magic stuff is also allegorical?

    I can't criticize it because it's actually rather good? How?

    What in the fudge is going on? Has everyone lost hold of their critical faculties? This movement or however it is classified sounds like a mess.
    And yes yes everyone is ignorant for jumping to conclusions...What is with the schoolboy tantrums whenever someone has an initial reaction to it? I mean after all if you've never heard of it, it's confusing and seems to promote notions of the self which ego centric and violent.
    Is the promotion of physical aggression actually meant or not? How do we know what is meant and what is not meant particularly in relation to the magic bit again? I imagined people here tried not to follow stuff?
    What the fudge people, what the fudge?

    Again let me draw attention to my opening disclaimer before a convert lampoons my corrosive ignorance. Maybe someone can just answer the questions I ask, I do ask them earnestly but I'm sure from my tone you can tell that I'm not buying it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    I know nothing about this
    so...be gentle

    Satan means self?

    In a sense yes. The icon of Satan is invoked in a kind of Plato-esque metaphor. An ideal so to speak.
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    He uses the word Satan and not self because he is parodying the church?

    Less parody than outright criticism and non=involved-adversarialism (I think I may have just coined a phraze there). The point is that coming from the background of western religion it is natural to use the standards of that society as a measure of what you are rejecting. The choice of "Satan" could as easily have been any of a dozen other mythological entities but it is in this case a perfect choice since the derivation of the word "Satan" comes from teh hebrew "Shaitan" or literally "accuser".
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    Some of the rules use the expression 'destroy them etc' - is this literal?

    Depends on the context. If someone is actively looking to kill you then yes. If someone is actively causing your trouble at work or in a relationship the objective is either to obliterate the threat by an intellectual process (undermining their position etc) or by removing any emotional barriers you will have set up for yourself by percieving such a threat - it neednt be physical violence, in fact that would be largely a stupid move since the repercussion for you would be unprofitable. the idea is that if you divest yourself of concern for the individual you are in effect "destroying" them in your personal reality. they cease to be an impediment to you doing what it is that you have set your mind to. I.e. it makes it easier to step over the other person to get what you want.
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    The magic stuff is also allegorical?

    Nope. Its practical.

    Applied psychology and deliberately pushing yourself into a deeper emotional state. The principals behind this are well understood by psychologists (I admit my own understanding of the precise mechanism is a little vague). Here the idea is to invoke a kind of self hypnotism wherein you will either divest yourself of negative emotions or generate positive ones.

    For most people it is done in the complete knowledge that there is no supernatural power (regardless of what LeVay may have said in later years trying to generate notoriety for himself). The whole thing is a personal pantomime really.
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    I can't criticize it because it's actually rather good? How?

    Not sure what this sentence means.

    Of course you can criticise, its as open to criticism as any other philosophical system. Criticism however invites counter criticism and explanation.
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    What in the fudge is going on? Has everyone lost hold of their critical faculties? This movement or however it is classified sounds like a mess.

    This is unnecessary. What are you getting at?
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    And yes yes everyone is ignorant for jumping to conclusions...

    Apparently so...
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    What is with the schoolboy tantrums whenever someone has an initial reaction to it?

    Mr. Pot? This is Mr. Kettle. Have you met?

    There is immaturity on both sides. The first lies with those jumping to the conclusion - intellectually and critically failing. The second lies with those getting overlyannoyed or upset when confronted with the aforementioned failing.

    Caveat to this however is that a single individual has only so much patience before they eventaully begin to crack. Gay, blacks, atheists ... at a certain point the ignorance and stereotyping behavior of others will begin to overcome ones "cool".
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    I mean after all if you've never heard of it, it's confusing and seems to promote notions of the self which ego centric and violent.

    Whats wrong with something being ego centric about enlightened self interest?

    Confusing? I honestly dont get this, there is very little room for confusion in the text. Its pretty plain english and requires only a small ammount metaphorical comprehension.

    As for it being violent ... heh ... come on ... as opposed to what? Radical Islam? Christian Fundamentalism? When was the last time you heard of a dictators ethnic cleansing policies being put down to his (notably all male arent they?) adherence to a self-aware theatrical philosophy?
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    Is the promotion of physical aggression actually meant or not? How do we know what is meant and what is not meant particularly in relation to the magic bit again? I imagined people here tried not to follow stuff?
    What the fudge people, what the fudge?

    You could try reading the posts or doing some research to alleviate your confusion. I find it helps and it more satisfying than demanding that all the answers be given to you on a drip feed.

    also ... its a little weird to demand answers a second time in the same post. Its like a quantum fallacy - no one has had a chance to answer yet.
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    Again let me draw attention to my opening disclaimer before a convert lampoons my corrosive ignorance. Maybe someone can just answer the questions I ask, I do ask them earnestly but I'm sure from my tone you can tell that I'm not buying it.

    Buying what? No one is selling anything.

    You dont like it, dont get it, dont understand it, can't be bothered with it, doesnt work for you as a personal philosophy, take issue with it etc etc etc ... then leave it alone. Wheres the beef?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement