I think it's a common misconception but Laveyan Satanists do not believe Satan is a real being. Satan is just used as a symbol of mans nature. They are atheists so they and do not sacrifice anything because there is no god to sacrifice to.
Spot on, I guess. I immediately thought of LaVey, too. Just didn't want to mention it directly ("no spoilers", or somesuch) . Most people are more familiar with the "Satanic Panic" misconceptions though, I'd say. The statements, 11 rules and 9 sins actually are one of the better moral compasses out there, in my opinion. Fun fact: And they show that some things never change, quote: "...but our society thrives increasingly on stupidity..." He wrote that when? Sometime in the 1960s?
I believe the stupidity quote is part of the 9 sins written in 80s. The 11 rules were written in 60s.
Yeah, spot on, guys. Many people still confuse satanism with devil worship, but that is plain wrong. The modern satanism has its roots in paganism, other nature-based and even nordic beliefs, you find a lot of similiarities if you take a closer look. And I am really pleased that quite a few tA members know what they are talking about. It's true, a satanist doesn't believe in the existence of a diety, god or whatever. Satanism, in simple words, is a belief, a philosophy, but not a religion. God and the devil are merely symbols, among many others. To satanists, the belief and worship of Satan as an anthropomorphic being is thought to be nothing more than a misguided perversion of Christianity. No satanist would run around and start to indoctrinate other people, because we strongly believe that people "awake" and find us on their own. I even daresay that this is a requirement. Without the ability to think for her-/himself and holding her-/himself responsible for all actions s/he does, one would make a terrible satanist. But hey, it's more easy for people to blame it on someone else or even a god. But if people really want to believe that there is an old guy in heaven who lets them burn in hell if they eat shrimp or touch themselves, well, let them. Since christianity also says that no-one is without sin, all christians - logically - will go to hell. This is very unpleasant thought, so why should I join? Yeah, most of the satanists today have very high moral standards, as Nullzone said, and it's always a pleasure to have those like-minded people around, because they are open-minded, hospitable and equipped with good manners. There are exceptions, but those are rare. Lots of satanists are also ecological and animal "activists", because we know that there would no life exist without nature. I am also following most of the 11 rules with a passion. And I am always amused how many people are following some of the rules without even knowing that they can be defined as satanists. I further think that (some) of the 10 comandments are pretty useful and exist for a reason, maybe people should leave all that other religious stuff aside and just stick to them. And to all people who want to learn more about religion in general: join the Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster on facebook. You'll be surprised.
Hm. I thought about your words for quite a while, and I think you're both right and wrong. It's false that nothing good came out of religion. A poster before me brought up some examples. But it's also true that nothing caused more human deaths than religion. Millions of humans and animals died, and are still dying in the name of various gods. And this still happens in the 21st century, so it's quite a shame for humankind. Even the most ambitious plagues haven't done that. All natural disasters and epedemic plagues together haven't done that. But if you do some research, you might notice that there's an "atheist explosion" at the moment. More and more people leave their faith behind and start looking at the world with their own eyes, instead of relying on a higher being to guide their steps. It feels like a great awakening. The churches all over the world lost more members in the last 5 years than in the years or decades before, even in states like Saudi Arabia. We all won't see it no more and maybe not the next few generations of humans, but religion is ultimately obsolete. Those with power in religion fear this end and that's simply where all the oppressed and dead people come from. Evoking fear in humans is still a powerful tool to force them into a belief, be it the prospect of burning in hell or be it the fear of having your head cut off. Some lunatic named Pat Robertson recently started to advise American people to beat up their non-believing childs, even on Christmas. Isn't it questionable that one oppresses or kills another, just to keep the status quo?
Roman Catholicism, which claims to be His church, is the richest of the rich, the wealthiest institution on earth. She is now so top-heavy with riches that she can rival - indeed, that she can put to shame - the combined might of the most redoubtable financial trusts, of the most potent industrial super-giants, and of the most prosperous global corporation of the world, according to financial experts. Well, she had a few thousand years to accumulate her riches, after all. But such is the vastness of the Vatican's wealth that it can find hundreds of millions of euros just tucked away off of its central balance sheet, according to the cardinal responsible for the Holy See's finances. In North America, they rake in around $850m per week in donations. Per week. Just in donations, in North America. So, when everything is about compassion and humanity, why won't the Vatican take a bit of its riches and end hunger and disease in the world?
I think it's more that religions tend to be used as a control method by people who ultimately caused the deaths, rather than the religions themselves. It's no different than governments with fear and patriotism, and those countries that were ruled by Kings and Queens under the pretence of being loyal subjects or traitorous vermin. The mechanisms change but the start and end results are much the same, a religious belief alone doesn't typically kill someone, the misinterpretation of it by someone wishing to control and rule does.
Yeah, I pretty much see your point. I have some answers to this, but I want to keep conversation peaceful here, so I have to hold back my opinions because they are likely capable to offend other people.
Wow - Didn't expect to find a thread like this here... Excellent! We think way too much of ourselves, sitting on this small planet on the edge of an ordinary galaxy, waving our sticks and pointing at the sun, a small star among the billions. The existence of religion is just proof of how early we are in our development as a species. It would be funny, if it wasn't so sad.
Pretty strong words, mate. You'd make a good Pastafarian. I like how your are implying that religion is kind of a mental shield we develop, to protect our sanity from the incomprehensibility of the vastness of the universe. That's pretty much the stuff Lovecraft loved playing with.
That religion developed out of a need for pattern recognition and readily available explanations in a dangerous environment ("Those stripes there, is that just an odd bush and all's well? Or a tiger, and I better run right now?") is an existing hypothesis. So your "mental shield" might not be too far off the mark. Don't have the links to the research readily at hand, unfortunately. Now, Lovecraft, that's a different story altogether... and a great writer.
Maybe I should be a little more specific. Lovecraft was a genius when he played with the fear of the unknown, which he (imho: correctly) called the greatest fear of humankind. He also knew, that in a state of infinity, everything is possible. Humankind always wondered if there are forces in the infinity of the universe. And when there are forces, they could be far superior. This might have been one of the sparks to create religions - to please a force like this, with worship, sacrifices, prayers. When a lightning hit a village house, the norse took it for granted that Odin was pissed about the people living there and a sacrifice was appropriate. Humankind finally created protectors and called them gods. Faith was born. Faith in a force in the universe's infinity, which does not seek to harm those who do good. Lovecraft did the same, just the other way round.
Well alright then, if all prejudice was removed from religion, would that make it a good thing? I identify as a Lutheran who also thinks scientific theories such as the Big Bang and universal expansion are legitimate claims. Take evolution for example, that's true, but I'm not gonna let my beliefs tell me it's not. I'd like to believe I live a morally sound life. I'm not a dick, and I don't go forcing my religion on others, but my religion sets me up for a moral compass and a belief in the afterlife. Thoughts?
Since prejudices are generally a bad thing, yes, it would make a good thing. Why do people think that they need a religion to follow a moral standard?
Difficult question, and highly speculative. No idea what a world without prejudiced religions would look like. But yes, would be better than what we have today. Religions are built around differentiating your group/tribe from "the others". Jews/Muslims mutilating their boys' genitals is a perfect example for that. Intolerance and exclusion are a core feature of the whole package. It's "us, the rightful" vs. "the unbelievers from that other tribe over the hill." As a Lutheran, what do you think about "sola fide" ("only the belief in Jesus Christ makes a human righteous before god")? That's your intolerance and prejudice right there. What Vovin says. Why not develop your own moral standards based on what you think is right? By the way, I am sure you already build your own morals anyways, beside or even in contradiction to your religion. You say you're a Lutheran. Not that easy to reply when I don't know which branch you subscribe to. From your statement on big bang and expansion I assume that you are not an orthodox who takes the Bible literally. Anyways, here's where things get interesting. Why do you accept scientific evidence for e.g. the theory of evolution, or the big bang? But not the lack of any evidence for the existence of any higher being or any kind of afterlife? Those concepts are thoroughly refuted by scientific evidence. I am honestly curious here; because personally, I have a really hard time wrapping my head around that dissonance so many believers exhibit. That's what everyone should strive for, if the morals are reasonable. E.g. no batshit crazy stuff like shooting abortion docs because you think they violate God's will and you are doing the righteous thing by killing them. Or blowing yourself up in the middle of thousands of people because you believe God will take you straight to paradise for killing the unbelievers.
I might be wrong here, but Qdiddy sounds more like he's not entirely sure what to believe and what not, my conclusion without the intention to offend. That is a stage we all go through (more or less). There is only one advice I can give and I can't repeat it enough: Question everything. And teach your children to question everything. That's how free will and an independent mind are born. Or how Christopher Hitchens said: "The essence of an independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but how it thinks.".
No, I'm entirely sure on what I believe. I think there is a god and he's the Christian god. When people mention religion though, they always fall back on the belief that, "oh, religion is awful and should be quelled from this earth". I think that's a bit closed minded and hateful for people who are intended to believe in the free will of man and the focus of human achievement. To put it bluntly, I believe I'm right, and they are wrong. People seem to think that that immediately means that I should go to war or start an argument because of it. Well, a disagreement does not necessitate a conflict. As for my scientific beliefs, we as a race, are starting to delve deep into the very structure of the universe. These theories and ideas are much too big for us to fully understand, and that's why it's closed-minded for us to think that an intelligent creator didn't create the universe. What people do is they close off options. "There's no afterlife, there's no God, I have evidence"! This is kind of hard to do seeing as you'd have to be dead to know that. The reason this debate has gone on for millennia is that it's difficult to prove, or disprove, the existence of a higher power. We're trying to answer unanswerable questions here, and it'd be a dumb idea to just say, there is/isn't a God. As for my moral compass, yes, I do have my own rules, but my religion also plays a part. It gives consequences to any bad things I might do, even if I'm not caught by the authorities. Really, it's a conscience, which anybody can have. My conscience takes the form of God, however, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to let it take a form that I'm comfortable with. Now, what's going to keep me from blowing myself up in a crowd of people? Well, my compass is both a mix of religious and logical reason. Which tells me, "that's dumb, why hurt others because God told you to? Shouldn't we have a say in it? I'm pretty sure my God wouldn't tell someone to do that." It places responsibility upon ourselves to determine what's right and wrong, with the help of religion. In conclusion, people shouldn't instantly think religion is bad, but instead, keep an open mind about new things. Maybe there is a God that created the universe, maybe there isn't. I choose to believe there is a God, does that make me evil and wrong?
