Atheistic Versus Theistic ? Is Satanism really split two ways ? | Forum

Smelly Cat Member
Smelly Cat Sep 6 '14
Before coming online I'd never been asked what kind of Satanist I was. Now there seems to be a plethora ranging from the mainstream LaVeyan to entire 'churches' styled by one person, who usually makes up the congregation too. From what I can tell the modern 1966 Church of Satan was never as clearly atheistic as current leader Crappy Gilmore would have us believe. LaVey was on record (literally, the occult experience LP) saying he did not discourage 'mystical' members from believing in an actual Devil. Aquino states LaVey exhibited Theistic traits with other rooms, aside from the Chamber we all know, set aside for different 'worship' and a mysterious 'pact' he once glimpsed in a strong box. Now the COS is staunchly atheistic to the point that long standing members are resigning. 


Does it really matter if some of us do or don't believe in Satan in one way or another ? 

Does it really matter if we choose a goat headed icon to focus upon or actually worship a fallen angel we believe in ?

Christians have been self styling for centuries and waded knee deep Jewish and Muslim blood in the name of God, Jesus and a healthy profit margin. 

If they're deprived of a war they'll even fight amongst themselves, witness the Catholic Protestant 'troubles' in Northern Ireland as a potent reminder of Christianity at work. Not much '' love thy neighbour '' on the Falls Road in the 1970s - 1990s.


In rejecting and standing apart from Christianity and the other main religions be careful not to ape their flaws, especially sectarianism and intolerance. 


Satanism, in any form, is about freedom from bullshit, rules, dogma and being told what to believe. 


Don't become the bully you should be protecting people from.

Share:
sonofject Member
sonofject Sep 7 '14
I don't think there's an issue of bullying or imposing any type of ideology on an individual. While I can agree that there are divisive lines drawn between what 'types' of satanism exist, there's nothing more to it than pushing an agenda in a popularity contest.

LaVey, however people perceive his brand of satanism to be, hit the nail on the head when it occured to him that some people get the notion of religious occultism to have a rational side of it. His take on 'atheists in evening clothes' (which to me was a somewhat reductionist opinion on hypocritical religious folk) pretty much was hijacked by post modernists and morphed into the label of Atheistic Satanist.

It's just a label to distinguish an ideology. In the real world, in the religious spectrum, it doesn't hold any significance beyond that. There's no battle of ideology. It's as inane as the atheism+ movement that had staunch atheists rolling their eyes at these useless labels pushing politically correct agendas. Fucking atheism+satanism. It's fruitless to think that there is opression on either side of the 'debate'. I actually like buzz phrases like 'rational occultism' or 'occult sciences'. You can see the inherent irony of those phrases as far as semantic meaning, but I think this is intentional to distinguish the path of study involved with those ideologies, nothing more.
Jon S Manager
Jon S Sep 7 '14
We have a special section on this forum just for theistics. This site is ran by two Atheistic Satanists so, it is what it is. 
Berardo Rodriguez Member
Berardo Rodriguez Sep 7 '14
I have my own opinions on the debate on atheistic versus theistic  satanism, but I don't  share them, it's because they can't fit with the opinions of others. Even though I consider S.I.N. a site where I can enjoy the fellowship with the different ideologies of satanism,  and I still keep my own respecting the others. If there are some satanists backbiting others trying to impose their ideology, they haven't matured in the philosophy of satanism or they are passed mature in fanaticism. 
Anna
Anna Sep 7 '14

Quote from SMELLYCAT From what I can tell the modern 1966 Church of Satan was never as clearly atheistic as current leader Crappy Gilmore would have us believe. LaVey was on record (literally, the occult experience LP) saying he did not discourage 'mystical' members from believing in an actual Devil. Aquino states LaVey exhibited Theistic traits with other rooms, aside from the Chamber we all know, set aside for different 'worship' and a mysterious 'pact' he once glimpsed in a strong box.


I would take Aquino's words with a grain of salt. He's a theist and disgruntled with the CoS. If I remember correctly, he wrote in his very long book titled "The Church of Satan" that during the rituals many members strongly felt the presence of someone powerful and not of this world. He implied it was probably Satan. It could be true that some members really believed in the real existence of the devil or it could be he simply misinterpreted their emotional reactions. The ritual is a psychodrama, the ritual room is a decompression chamber. For the "magic" to be successful, first the suspension of disbelief must occur. I'm pretty sure that the rituals performed by Anton LaVey made a strong impression on all the participants, but it doesn't mean they believed in Satan as a real entity existing somewhere in the acausal realm.

Actually, it wasn't the theistic beliefs of Aquino that was his prime beef with the CoS but rather LaVey becoming more secluded and selling the grades. Generally, Aquino and several of his supporters thought that the Church was in decline, that it was no longer an elitist organization it used to be, that LaVey somehow compromised it by selling the grades for money, instead of awarding them for achievements.

From what I remember, there is no trace in LaVey's works that he was a theist. If you found something in his works that proves him a theist, then by all means share it. He believed in magic, that's for sure, but the magic, according to LaVey, was the sole achievement of the human mind, not some deity.


Quote from SMELLYCAT Does it really matter if some of us do or don't believe in Satan in one way or another ?

No.


Quote from SMELLYCAT Does it really matter if we choose a goat headed icon to focus upon or actually worship a fallen angel we believe in ?

No.


Quote from SMELLYCAT Christians have been self styling for centuries and waded knee deep Jewish and Muslim blood in the name of God, Jesus and a healthy profit margin. If they're deprived of a war they'll even fight amongst themselves, witness the Catholic Protestant 'troubles' in Northern Ireland as a potent reminder of Christianity at work. Not much '' love thy neighbour '' on the Falls Road in the 1970s - 1990s.

It had nothing to do with the religion. Why do you think the English protestants settled in the Northern Ireland?


Quote from SMELLYCAT Satanism, in any form, is about freedom from bullshit, rules, dogma and being told what to believe. Don't become the bully you should be protecting people from.

Divide et impera.

The wise see the forest, the fools see only trees.
Khandnalie Member
Khandnalie Sep 7 '14

Quote from RisingPhoeni
P.S. All of this is bullshit, I just made it up.
Trollololol? 
Khandnalie Member
Khandnalie Sep 8 '14
If you're really trolling, then I see no need to interfere. Troll on. 


If you are sincere in your posted beliefs above, they're so stupid, there's hardly a comment I could make that would add anything to it. You are mocked by your own words more than I ever could. 


I am, however curious whether or not you were trolling. Thus, I inquired, "Trollololol?" 


That is the only thing I wish to add to the issue at this time 

Anna
Anna Sep 8 '14
So the Bible was written 2000 years ago lol. This is the most hopeless troll I've ever seen.

Duck_in_the_roasting_pan. ;)
nith
nith Sep 8 '14

Atheist vs theist, is Satanism split two ways? This is an interesting question but I do think it needs a quick what is Satanism line at the front. Working from the verb based meanings I wonder at what stage does a person who runs call themselves a runner. Once the person calls themselves a runner what amount of walking or sleeping are they allowed to do. In many ways I see arguing the use of the title is like arguing the icing where there is no cake.


I like to ditch both atheist and theist title ideas. Many with their actions showing atheism to be nothing more than a science based theism with thinkers doing the work while followers pay lip service and parrot lines. Though I find myself more towards the atheist idea there I distance myself from the practice of the atheist preacher stereotype as much as I can.


The real answers to the opening post would find better replies in “what is the difference between left and right hand path”.

Quote from SMELLYCAT If they're deprived of a war they'll even fight amongst themselves, witness the Catholic Protestant 'troubles' in Northern Ireland as a potent reminder of Christianity at work. Not much '' love thy neighbour '' on the Falls Road in the 1970s - 1990s.

PS; I did find the comment on 1970-1990 northern Ireland rather funny. The newspapers depicted the differences as religious but it was more political than religious. Also,,, anyone who thinks Christians are all peace and love have not actually read or understood the book they use.



Quote from SMELLYCAT Don't become the bully you should be protecting people from.

PPS; I am wondering at what stage a person who uses the title of Satanist becomes a protector?

Andrew Young
Andrew Young Sep 8 '14
Atheism is like being a non-smoker. The label wouldn't exist if a whole lot of other people weren't doing the thing you're not doing. For me the lack of spiritual belief is just that: a total absence of belief. I don't disbelieve; I simply don't believe. I never have in my entire life. The supernatural doesn't even make cognitive sense to me. My lack of belief is divorced from my identification as a Satanist, except in one way: I place great importance on knowledge and facts. As I have never seen any compelling evidence that would make me entertain supernatural ideas, I cannot consider them to be facts and I therefore dismiss them. That's a somewhat indirect connection between Satanism and atheism for me, so I mostly view it as incidental. If any of that makes sense.
nith
nith Sep 9 '14

This I would say has a basic point if all animals are pack animals but they are not.

Quote from Ches In any case I see tribes, cliques, and gangs as only embracing the animals we are. Crimson, tooth, and claw.

If looking to justify grouping to the animal side of humanity I wouldn't bother. Yes there are many pack based animals but there are also many animals who remain solitary unless mating or brief meetings.

Quote from Ches Without "us vs. them" can there even be an LHP?

It does not have to be an “us vs them” but can be the “me vs the world”.


I would say when many people agree on a topic it could be said they are agreeing with the person but would that be correct? Many might just agree with people but if I agree with a reply or an idea, I am agreeing or disagreeing with the idea or topic and not the person.


It sounds like an argument based on semantics but think about it.

Anna
Anna Sep 9 '14

Quote from Ches You either forfeit your individuality by choosing, or you are deemed indecisive if not. The decision becomes a selfish one. You align to remain part of a tribe.


Now you are being silly. You don't join a tribe, but you are born into one. Traditional tribes were linked by social and blood ties. They shared the same culture, language and usually also the same religion. They also usually lived together and had a leader. Nowadays, the reminiscent of a tribe and a substitute for a tribe is a nation, because it usually shares the same culture, language and historical heritage, though it's not as coherent as a traditional tribe.

A clan is an extended family consisting of several generations; grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren, relatives and at times also great grandparents and great grandchildren living together. To simplify: it's a group of people united by blood bond. Nowadays, we don't have clans but mono-nuclear families. But still if you have a deep and meaningful relationship with your parents, relatives and kins, you may call them your clan, even if you don't live together.

As you see, you don't join a tribe or a clan. You can change your citizenship, but you will remain strongly influenced by your own culture, because it's rooted in you. You can move away from your family, but your childhood upbringing will affect strongly your adulthood. It's like a brand but the one that is burned not into your skin but into your mind.

An organization or a group of people sharing similar "mindset" or the same ideology is not a tribe, no matter how often they jerk to each other or pat each other on the back. A clique is also not the best word here. Usually, people form cliques to help each other realize their interests. It's not the ideology but common interests and goals or the status/prestige that unite the members of a particular clique.


Quote from Ches The tendency is to seek out "a similar scent", something that is familiar. In today's world that's ideology.

All nice and well, but the question is what for? The path to wisdom is solitary, no matter what organization you join or what label you stamp on your ass.

nith
nith Sep 9 '14

During high school (and all the way back to the early primary school) I was not one to to mix by the jock, trendies or geeks group standards. With the exclusion of the trendies group I had at least one friend in each of the groups but didn't mix with them just because they were in a group.


Some may and some may not grow out of these programmed set basics but there are odd ones like myself who ignored them. If I was to look at American media especially in the 80's, it was advertised a person had to fit one of these social cliques or be outcast to them all. From basic social studies even some of the target audiences in America didn't take it as 100% needed.


So yes, there is a majority that follow social clique rule sets but there are those that have questioned the reality of these groups and found the ideas wanting. So you could end up meeting someone who was in the chess club as well as the rugby and soccer (and many others) yet didn't hang around with these people outside the events.

Khandnalie Member
Khandnalie Sep 9 '14

Quote from Dimitri
Quote from Khandnalie If you are sincere in your posted beliefs above, they're so stupid, there's hardly a comment I could make that would add anything to it. You are mocked by your own words more than I ever could. 
There's actually quite some sense in what he's written. Every atheist had their religious "beginning" before shying away and announcing their disbelief. Seldom have I seen someone who was born and raised as an atheist. A curiosity to "the other side" is always established at a certain point in (their) life. 

Evolution HAS a few unexplained phenomena. I dare not to say "holes" as much as the mechanism and reason behind certain phenomena are still unknown. 

As far as Satanism goes. In covert terms, what phoenix described, that's exactly what happened. Although the "exactness" has more to do with background and ones point of view. 
My main thing is his comments on science and faith. Science and faith do not and can not intersect, by definition. 


Anyways, I'm pretty sure he was trolling, so I don't really care. Whatevs. 

Anna
Anna Sep 10 '14

Quote from RisingPhoenix Perhaps you should research when the earliest texts of the bible may have been written down. I was being generous at the 2000yr mark


Oh for fuck's sake! Here, read for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

Not 2000 but nearly 3000 years ago.
nith
nith Sep 10 '14

I might have a go at playing the adversary to the adversary here. The science based method is all well and good right up to the introduction of the type of human using it. What I am about to do might seem simple semantics to some but isn't checking the base workings part of that science based method?


It does seem Rising Phoenix has a point but throws a couple of generalisations in and ruins the descriptions. The idea that there is “nothing new under the sun” is all well and good till we throw in human applications and inventions. Technology (even the wheel) is based on the evolution of scientific application and understanding.


I don't see the words faith or belief as the evil many list them as. Now if it had the additive “blind faith” or “unfounded belief” and there was no effort if testing it, that would be the meanings that I think should be avoided. To explain this I would borrow from the writings of Kant on experienced and passed on knowledge. Once I experience a set idea in practice there is no belief needed but up till that point it is a belief based on someone else's work.


Many stop after the initial testing of an idea and think of it as fact but this is just a human short coming. When I first signed on to the older version of this site I made a statement that “any unquestioned and untested idea can become a religious state”. This statement had nothing to do with gods but the idea that at the point of testing there was nothing left to learn.


After that long winded example I would also state that Atheism (the rejection of belief in deities), also needs to address religious thought forms and not just story figure heads.

Khandnalie Member
Khandnalie Sep 10 '14

Quote from RisingPhoenix
Just because science is willing to accept their misconceptions and reroute themselves using new information doesn't mean that they don't operate on the same basic level of faith or belief or whatever. Without faith in the scientific method we wouldn't have science.



Oh for fucks sake. Do you even hear yourself? 


I hate that I have to even make this point: Science is mutually exclusive to faith. They do not and can not intersect. 


Science is the application of logical argument to physical evidence. Logical arguments begin with assumptions. As a general trend, the more assumptions an argument has, the weaker it is, because each assumption is a weak point, where pure logic must give way to the uncertainties of reality. Science is, in effect, one long ongoing logical argument, with only two assumptions: 

A) Reality is generally self consistent.  

B) The senses can convey accurate information about reality. 


These are both valid assumptions, because without either of them, reality would be unknowable. Thus, the only article of 'faith' within science is that reality is somehow knowable. 


Anyways, from those two assumptions, we have proceeded to build and solidify ideas of reality. We group these ideas into theories. Once a theory has gained enough evidence - that is that it has been shown to be true, working from those first assumptions, and other established facts - it itself is considered a fact, and can be used as a premise to evidence other theories that build off of it. Because it has been built logically from those first principles, it is itself logically sound and thus a valid premise for further arguments. 


Evolution isn't true because anyone has faith - it's true because it has been shown, demonstrably, working from those first assumptions, to be true. Just because it has "holes" doesn't make it any less true, it simply means that we don't yet know certain details about how it was implemented at certain points. Think of it like this: If you have a computer program that works, and you know that it works, but you cannot see where in the code a certain process occurs, that does not invalidate the program, it simply means you need to look harder. 


So, no, science does not require faith. By the very definition of what they both are, they can never meet. 


Also, if you are so concerned about holes in the tree of life, go to your local university and talk to a professor of evolutionary biology. Actually learn something instead of spouting off half baked ideas. 


If you're a troll, you're a damn good one though, I'll give you that. 

The Forum post is edited by Khandnalie Sep 10 '14
nikey69
nikey69 Oct 12 '14
We all believe what we want to believe. This has nothing to do with the objective truth but it is very true to us at that moment in time. Our beliefs are initially influenced by the cultural back ground we grew up in. Then genetics and individual experiences influence our thoughts. Some follow Memes to their end points and they truly believe in the end point. Others are more open minded and never truly believe in what is presented to them. What then of an objective truth? In the end to the individual it doesn't matter as you are sovereign and your current beliefs are what is important and real to you. There will always be differing viewpoints but to you your current beliefs are real but open to change
The Forum post is edited by nikey69 Oct 12 '14
Troll Member
Troll Oct 19 '15
Of course not. The 'atheism vs theism' divide was constructed by theists in opposition to those whom they sought to convert. This was carried INTO Satanism by early Satanists who couldn't fathom the notion of accepting Satan as a demon and having some preferred relation with him (worshipping him, allying with him, studying with him, playing, etc.).


The dualism comes from conservative, fundamentalist anti-Satanist religion in which many of these Satanists were brought up. As time wears on many other more interesting alternatives will be dreamed up, including self-styled Satanism that originates entirely new standards, and Demonic Satanism which takes the demon promoted by anti-Satanists and accepts it as ally, friend, or worshipful cause. 


--Troll
http://www.satanservice.org/wiki/Demonic_Satanism

The Forum post is edited by Troll Oct 22 '15
fratershab
fratershab Oct 22 '15
Very good question! But it is split into more than two ways. I personally resigned from CoS and TST for this reason. I do not think it very 'Satanic' of myself to willingly marginalize myself from others who worship 'Satan' or 'Belial' or whatever they wish.


It also does not offend me to sit in a theosophical society meeting and here them elaborate on what 'Lucifer' really is and the "age of Lucifer" and blavatskys rambling nonsense. When I first got on the LHP almost 22 years ago as a edgy, rebellious teen I DID WORSHIP THE DEVIL or whatever would shock the Christians into getting away from me.


I also went to CoS grotto meetings where we 'invoked Belial' and other rites where we called on Satan and I thought I was just having a good time with some friends and celebrating life in a unique way. Then I met CoAz and Diana Vera and enjoyed our meetings drinking Irish coffees on 9th Ave at that diner in the city.


I also enjoyed going to Masonic events and discussing the occult and Baphomet and Lucifer and demonology and the knights templar there are a few other orgs I met along the way some I enjoyed some were a waste of time and donations but lesson learned. Essentially I try not to care too much 'what' someone believes in. I was a theist at one point I am not now and that may change in 10 years when I drop 80 hits of DMT and meet "ThrallSnarf the Majestic" in Allahabad. I try to keep myself open minded and free from all that dogma bs, just do what you want and fuck the closed minded plebs

Pages: 1 2 »
Satanic International Network was created by Zach Black in 2009.
Certain features and pages can only be viewed by registered users.

Join Now

Spread the Word. Help Us Grow

Share:

Donate - PayPal