Blasphemy | Forum

And if you get rich (which seems to happen): 

I also appreciate other fruits and vegetables, for example bananas, lemons, apples or eggplants. But it is a blasphemy to say you don't like big boobs.

I also like torpedoes. I once met a girl with a double torpedo tubes, I am still not sure if she really liked it that way or if it was the surgeon's mistake. Anyway, they were awesome!

I mean she was like a bunny, but with two carrots planted into her chest, pointing at me! Caucasian, blonde, shaved.

Oversized carrots!

Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and others of their ilk should not pertain to Satanic thought. They undermine and stand in opposition to core tenets of Satanism. They reject systems of belief to the extend that a hard materialist and nihilistic world remains. They deconstruct the world to a scientific and "clean" plain plane of existence where wonder does not exist. An Authoritarian one where uninitiated (non-Academics) have nothing to offer or to gain. Of endless semantic (and biased ideological) discussions rule prime. 

Blasphemy is not unholy by reason of assertive rejection.
It is blatant disrespect. Signs of an unbalanced and sick mind. 

Since I'm a Satanist and the Four Horsemen pertain to my thought, it follows, ipso facto, that the Four Horsemen pertain to Satanic thought. More to the point, they pertain to Id and Ego putting Superego to death. They're on the side of Ego (the reality principle). They have little, if anything, constructive to say about the Id (the pleasure/displeasure principle), and they don't seem to have any interest in putting Superego (the morality principle) to death, but hey, one out of three ain't bad.

Also, a hard materialist and nihilistic world view can fit perfectly well into Satanism; the scientific sense of wonder is abundantly documented; and multitudes of non-academics read the books of the Four Horsemen and then go on to forge their own antitheistic paths. The last sentence of your second paragraph is unintelligible to me.

Finally, my mind is neither unbalanced nor sick, and I blaspheme. I quite enjoy it, actually.

Also, a hard materialist and nihilistic world view can fit perfectly well into Satanism; the scientific sense of wonder is abundantly documented; and multitudes of non-academics read the books of the Four Horsemen and then go on to forge their own antitheistic paths. 

I was once actively chastised by 'Satanists' for holding this position I considered a no-brainer.  

I credit that I knew who Carl Sagan was before I knew who Jesus was.  I knew the order of the planet's by 4, and the age of the earth not long after. As instead of bible stories I was read a children's books on the creation of the solar system from the circa 1982 scientific perspective. 

The real contributor was watching "Unsolved Mysteries" with my parents. It was like being raised by Snopes. I always came away thinking, "It is always fat rednecks in their trucks out in the middle of nowhere seeing Cigar shaped craft". 

Antitheism was a natural progression. Influence instilled The Scientific Method in place of spirituality. 

The funniest thing about this is a VERY common reaction of the average Truth Fish Christian twat. They call it "Scientism" because they can't recognize the difference is a matter of abstraction. 

They might argue, "You use science like gospel religion. Your religion says once it's proven by science it becomes gospel and surrogate gods" 

You wanna say, "But you're missing the main thing is the ability for using faith in approach. And you need a fallacy to argue it." 

But then they say, "But you have faith in the scientists". 

And then you give up and walk away because it's futile. Even if it's empirical and repeatable and been verified to the point it can't be contested. Even when there's no saying, "The data is wrong", the data is still wrong and no more valid then ideas of superstition.  

It's not "serving abstraction" anymore. It has been experienced by the senses in a way that is irrefutable. 

While, it is a "religious" approach in the broadest sense of terms it varies on the key mode of attainment, the requirement of extraordinary proof. You just have to be Monty Python explaining over and over that the parrot is dead. 

But I can still speculate and have all the amenable ideas I want. Just gotta qualify them as much.

Currently I have an idea "faith" is related to chemical regulation in the brain. Like the same way "addiction prone" traits are genetically predisposing people to have dopamine problems. And by extension of concept I feel faith is likewise chemically rewarding the same way group social shaming is for those on the attack. Conformity to the herd and reward. This is why AA and higher powers/group acceptance is such a viable method to the religious and faithful, it replaces like with chemical like. Likewise, Antitheists are likely less prone to addiction for the same reasons. 

Just like the pleasure reward for participating in salacious gossip faith engages the appeal to the herd wiring. Like the only reason it has a reward is for the security it provides to conform, having directly to so with the ideas themselves. 

The heavily disputed VMAT2 gene is merely a monoamine neurotransmitter regulating dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine. Basically belief in god could be a psychosomatic release of brain chemicals like the Baptist feeling the spirit of God in church. 

IMO satanism is absolutely medicatable. Nothing but chemical regulating mood disorders. They need bipolar meds stat! 

Did you miss the part where I said: 

But I can still speculate and have all the amenable ideas I want. Just gotta qualify them as much.

And I can even argue them for recreation. 

So what particularly do you take issue with?  

Or do just want to scoff in a blanket statement without providing substance as to why? Do you have a rationale?  If it's "sad" to cite chemicals please do provide a nice supporting argument as to why.

Preferably the anti-psychology/DSM/big pharma argument. 

The one where the racket itself is cause for discrediting all science on "brain chemicals" later regulated by pharmaceutical products prescribed on incentive. 

* autocorrect errors fixed

It belatedly (to put it mildly) occurs to me to look at LaVey's Nine Statements in this light. I know this light is the very first one that everyone else on earth would have looked at the Nine Statements in. I can be a dipshit sometimes. 

The CoS hates it when Satanists conceptualize and practice Satanism as anti-Christianity. They were so vehemently vocal about it that they influenced my own thoughts on the matter, I'm embarrassed to say. There's nothing I hate more than discovering other people's biases living in my head.

So fuck the CoS. Here's my ultimate blasphemy articulation of what it means to stand for the opposite of what my childhood indoctrination tried to inculcate within me. And no, this doesn't mean that Christianity is controlling me. Fighting back is, at the very least, as valid a response as walking away or standing there and taking it. Blasphemy is good for the psyche.

I can see how Satanism could be considered a branch of humanism. Most people think of humanism as altruistic, but an egoistic humanism is certainly possible, and maybe Satanism (as I conceptualize and practice it) is precisely that: egoistic humanism. Just add a pinch of horror movie aesthetic.

Another example of egoistic humanism would be Objectivism, which also has a certain aesthetic, call it Gone with the Wind. The problem with Objectivism is that it's all Ego and no Id.

I can't think of any others. The two already mentioned have the niche all to themselves. And I wouldn't say they've conquered the world just yet. Humanism is in fashion but egoism isn't.

As for rights and responsibilities, they're two sides of the same coin. If I have the right to make up my own mind, well, it's also true that I'm responsible for making up my own mind. If I have the right to speak my own mind, well, it's also true that I'm responsible for thinking before I speak.

As for being god, I've noted before that I hate that phrase. I'm not a god. Nobody is. What I am is a prince in the darkness.

Quote from SatansSlave
I think you need to mix with real people

That is true. My rant for the dozens. I'd still like to inquire how people differentiate in a satanic world we are living in 2021.

Humanism thing is based on the idea of human supremacy. 'm not advocating human supremacy.

Most of the political, ideological and philosophical positions being intertwined with Satanism are bullshit. At the core stands a misguided individual trying to understand, and exaggerate, his own place in the world. 

This is the reason why many "groups" (such as TST) are plain and utter bullshit. A stain on the record. 

The endless discussions had within the Satanic sphere are a direct result of clashing opinions whom people use to justify their "Satanity". Their worldview being distorted by a variety of views, opinions and statements which are contradicting and nonsensical... religion (Satanism) being used as the universal glue to make it stick together and stop the inner conflict and tinkering. 

Satanism is a religion and there is therefore no reason to label a philosophy or personal philosophy "satanic". it has been tried before back in 2006 here in Denmark and it backfired. The agent for the satanic organisation (Satanisk Forum as it was called) got completely roasted by a priest in a public debate who had done a little research on Satanism. 

You know, not everyone is all that impressed by junior high school styled sex humor or equally immature and superficial pontifications on the occult. In both cases a lot of talk usually means little or no walk. The former is curious virgins' domain, the latter appeals to pretentious poseurs. Usually, that is.