RyanS2

"I admit that I don't know much about what real Satanism is."

I always admire honesty.

"But my objections regarding Satanism and the march aren't based on any disagreement about its precepts."

So basically: "I don't know what you are guys are about, and nor do I care what you guys are about. My opinions regarding you have little to do with factual evidence, and more to do with preconceived biases."

That about sum it up? Glad we still aren't stuck on that moraless atheist preconceived bias, that could get annoying for atheists after a while right?

"That you have to spend so many words in explanation of your view, plus make reference to a website, plus insist that readers go through the entire website, all supports, rather than distracts from, the basic premise that this does not aid, but hinders, clear and efficient communication."

To whomever this is, I was responding to eleven pages of garbage, and did so in minimum time. There are many, many threads here which are ten times longer than what I've written, so this just appears as an obfuscation tactic to me. I never said our views were *easy* to understand, only that if one put forth the effort to do so, it's possible.

To Mad Kally, my point proven. The news article is so shoddily written that they misspell "United Satanic Covenire" for "United Satanic Convenire", yet even they with what appears to be minimal research found out in five minutes what the website was about and our beliefs. It seems that the people who got this worst end of this article were these people:

So for all the horror that was predicted, the knee-jerk didn't verify with the real world data.

To Starspun, you're repeating what I've already addressed. I specifically told Ellen Johnson, (and this is her show), that if she did not want us sponsoring the event, she could take down the org from the list. She declined. Deal with it.

To Stephen T-B, if you're going to try your hand at declamation and puerility, you should also go for just a *hint* of wit and sarcasm. When you overuse sarcasm, it's like drowning corn flakes in tobasco sauce.

phlebas

Interesting, then, the intellectual dishonesty you show by misrepresenting my point

The first part is true. It would be interesting to see how you got that last sentence out of my original post.

My objection is with the name "Satanist." If you're going to tell me that it is not a fact that your little group is collectively called "Satanists," then we have some bad factual evidence on my part.

That label will, in my opinion, distract from any good that might otherwise come out of that march.

Got it? No?

[QUOTE]<strong>That about sum it up? Glad we still aren't stuck on that moraless atheist preconceived bias, that could get annoying for atheists after a while right? </strong>

Comprehension isn't your big thing, is it? Maybe my post needs to be much longer and denser before you can comprehend it.

It is true I don't give a damn about what Satanists believe, other than a passing curiosity about other belief systems in general. My objection is the face you show to the world.

Got it yet?

And, no, I don't care if Ellen Johnson welcomes you with open arms. These are my opinions, not hers.

daemon

Congratulations, Ryan, on your incredible hypocritical condemnation of failing to read another's arguments. Truly, you are a marvel among intellectuals!

Perhaps you should read the objections rather than erect your own phony little strawman to smack down.
Yes, that's the point. The people we are trying to talk to are not going to put any effort into understanding us. They are not going to give a tiny tinker's damn about your philosophy or what you have to say because you tacked a big sign up saying "I'm a Satanist!" Satanists are evil, liars, cavorters with demons, and enemies of God, and not one thing you say will change that perception, no matter how false it is!

jess

ok, I am just jumping in with little knowledge of what is going on here...

I am not a satanist, although several friends are and one very good friend is. And I would seriously consider being one if 'forced' to choose a religion for some reason.

but what a Satanist is and what the average joe blow idiot thinks s/he is is two different things.

I think some people should be more open to the possibility of accepting Satanists as compatriots and I think Satanists ought to remember that by picking their name to piss off the xians they have also lost the ability to be a respected part of the community and to endorse minority views, thus while they may be as rational and as atheistic as the next dude, calling themselves Satanists will cause the ruckus that your founders asked for in the first place.

Let's cross one bridge at a time, ok?

sorry for bursting in. I skimmed and think both sides have valid points. that's all.

daemon

Let me just lay out an analogy with a hypothetical philosophical organization:

The Nazis.

These Nazis are an organization that supports National Socialism. They aren't racist. They don't support any form of religious intolerance. They're just strongly Nationalist, and favor Socialism.

Is it wise to support this organization? To associate oneself with it? Do you think anyone will bother to read one word these people have to say if they call themselves "Nazis?"

This is the issue with calling oneself a Satanist. It doesn't matter what your actual philosophy is; the fact is that there is a wealth of legend and lore about Satanists that existed long before LaVey and all of it was seriously bad. To call oneself a Satanist is to implicitly accept all the baggage that comes with the name.

If you want to be taken seriously, fine--drop the symbolism, the magick*, call yourself a LaVeyan. If you want to be thought of as a nutcase who worships the evil enemy of the sky-fairy, call yourself a Satanist.

That's the point.

*or majik or maejiack or however you want to spell it

Talon

I have a few questions;

1) Do you believe an entity called "Satan" exists?

2) If you do, what is it's nature? Is it like that which is commonly believed, a supernatural being?

3) If "Satan" does not exist, why the word satanists?

4) If you do believe in a super natural being called "Satan", how can you consider yourself Atheist?


Sorry, but your site dosesn't come up at work.

TALON

RyanS2

Phlebas, you state your objection is over the name, and that what you associate with the name is a preconceived bias. Am I correct thus far?

My objection is with the name "Satanist."

I've explained to you what the name means, why we use that name, and so forth. You're harping on that you don't like that name. What is your reason for not liking that name? You believe it represents something it doesn't, and that by including it in the march, it will detract from it. If this is not your argument, please, by all means, show me how I'm wrong. I have yet to hear you make any ONE singular argument against it except for the fact that you don't like the name, and it goes back to the same circular argument. You don't like the name because of what you believe it represents, and you don't want that in the march. Whenever you try predicting what other people think based upon your own perceptions, it's called "projection". When you say, "Other people will think", what you really mean to say it "I think". Here's the textbook definition of it: "The process of ascribing unwittingly one's beliefs, values and other subjective processes to others."

Oh... I got it. When people take the two minutes to type that in a search engine, they're going to see the Church of Satan homepage. I can try playing dodgeball with the issue like Michael Aquino did and call myself a "Setian', or a "M/I/D/A/S/ian", or any other name, you just pick it. It won't take long for one ingenius person with a search engine to type in the name, look around, and find out where these ideas originated from and who started them. It didn't help Michael Aquino any, and I doubt it will help me or my org any.

For the record, most fundamentalists know way more about Satanism than any of you. I know because I get lots of e-mail from groups like "watchman.org" and other apologetic ministries. While they will harp on about the literal existence of Satan, all of them have noted that neither my org nor any of the other orgs they know believe in the existence of Satan, outside the Temple of Set. (Who believe in Set, not Satan.) For a bit longer conclusion:

<a href="http://www.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/lewis2.html" target="_blank">http://www.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/lewis2.html</a>

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: RyanS2 ]</p>

Mad Kally

Psycho mom: ALL ATHEISTS ARE SATANISTS! IT SAYS SO IN THIS ARTICLE AND I SAW IT ON TV!! I'VE ALWAYS KNOWN THAT!!!

Kally: Satanists don't really believe in god OR Satan. Besides, there's this guy named La Vey...

Psycho mom: LIAR!!!!! THE DEVIL IS IN ALL OF YOU EVIL PEOPLE AND YOU WILL ALL BURN IN HELL!!! YOUR KNEES WILL BOW ON JUDGEMENT DAY!!!

RyanS2

No. I don't believe "Dionysus" exists either, yet no one has made any claims against me calling myself part of a Dionysian philosophy. Wonder why?

The nature of Satan is a word. The word itself represents an archetype, the questioning-self. The person who can go and think clearly without preconditioned biases, beliefs, and evaluate what they think they know, and what they really know.

'3) If "Satan" does not exist, why the word satanists?'

Like words "Dionysian", "Apollonian", "Lillithian" and so on, these are all names of archetypical expressions. I've never met anyone who has used the above words as anything more than a metaphor, because they have the ability to recognize these are just mythical archetypes, and nothing more, and Satan falls under the same class.

To Mad Kally: That psycho-mom, does she recognize atheism as a viable disbelief, even if we, (Satanists) were NEVER associated with it? I doubt it. She would simply tell you that "the greatest trick the devil ever did was convincing the World he didn't exist." Then you could reply, "The greatest trick God ever did was convincing the World he did exist."

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: RyanS2 ]</p>

Talon

Given the obvious disdain for the word "satanist", why not create a new archetype? A new name? If it has no bearing on "satan" what's the harm in calling it something more palatable?