Sign In
Is Abortion anti satanic? | Forum
AntonDahmer
Dec 3 '16
I would really be interested in hearing what you guys think about whether or not abortion is able to coexist with a LaVeyan satanism mindset. In particular I'm referring to the eleven satanic rules of the earth number nine, "do not harm little children". What do you guys think of this, would you consider a fetus "little children", if not would the amount time left before the estimated birth have any effect? This is something I've been wondering about myself, for example would the fetus at 8 months be considered "little children" meaning that late term abortions would be in defiance of this rule?
AntonDahmer
Dec 3 '16
I understand LaVeyan satanism at its core is basically an atheistic movement based on rejection of Christianity and other beliefs, but their seems to clearly be a guideline of how to ethically live as a LaVeyan satanist set forth by LaVey. Just to be clear what I'm referring to isn't independents or theists, not that they aren't legitimate, but I was strictly wondering about was those of us that choose to identify as LaVeyan which has rules associated with that particular path.
AntonDahmer
Dec 3 '16
Interesting, but if their can never be any rules to define satanism then who's to say that LaVeyan satanism is an oxymoron? They aren't worshipping LaVey as a god figure, and those that follow LaVeys teachings also believe that they are their own god. A LaVeyan satanist would have more than just being an atheist in common with others, and I'm confused as to why you think that they wouldn't be legitimate.
AntonDahmer
Dec 3 '16
Satanism has been expressed in many different ways throughout history, one being LaVeyan satanism. It seems strange to apply the same definition to every group that titles itself "satanism" when satanism is not one organised system, or even an organised rejection of a system that's only goal is to express indivisualism like you said. Assuming your definition I would like to refer back to your original reply where you said anti-abortion is anti-satanic if satanism is only a rejection of authorities then how can this be anti-satanic? What if the indivisual will of one Satanist is to be against abortion, would you feel the that imposing your authority on someone else to also be anti-Satanic
AntonDahmer
Dec 4 '16
If you look at the history of the major religions currently, the abrahamic religions, they are crealy much more definable than satanism. If you try and explain Christianity and it's ethics throughout its history, while of course their are many contradictions and changes in what's acceptable at a given time, it is still basically Christianity. If you look at the history of all groups defining themselves as satanism their are so many differncess you wouldn't ever be able contain it to one system. For example not all Satanist reject the world view of good and evil, some do basically hold onto the majority of Christianitys worldview and worship the literal Christian devil, how would these people fall into the same system as a modern atheistic Satanist that uses it as a metaphor of rejection like you mentioned? To further illustrate my point you mentioned above that satanism is a "religion based on rejection of authorities", while this would apply to thiest, a atheistic individual who uses satan as a metaphor for individuality wouldn't fit under this label. Most people consider religion the worship of some sort of supernatural power, a thiest would allign with this perhaps but atheists don't worship any supernatural power, I believe you even made this point earlier by saying a Satanist would never follow anyone. How can you have a religion with many different sub groups, theist and atheist, and completely different philosophys attached to each one? For your abortion point, why must a Satanist care for his satanic sister if your definition of the satanic religion doesn't mention this at all? If satanism is a rejection of authorities, then who has the auhtory to lay out what is anti satanic?
AntonDahmer
Dec 4 '16
So just to be more blunt, you don't recognize LaVeyan satanism as a real satanic ideology? As for your first point I didn't mean my comment as an insult in any way, this is just a very interesting toppic to me. However by definition atheism isn't a religion, meaning the current definition of religion and the one that is accepted by the vast majority of people, at least here in the U.S. would be in strict conflict with a atheist. The definition of religion is The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: and the definition of atheist is A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. This is from Oxford dictionary. I would be very interested if you disagree,or if you use religion as a metaphorical term similar to how Anton LaVey did.
AntonDahmer
Dec 4 '16
Could you please site a religious scholar that would define religion in a whay that atheism could coexist within it? For your last question, if you created a philosohy where your followers were called satanist I would consider it legitimate, because I don't consider satanism one system at all. I see satanism throughout the years as various similar, but unconnected movements usually based on the rejection of an established religion, one example being LaVeyan satanism from the late 60's to today, largely as a response to conservative Christianity in the United States. As a final question I would be very interested to know where you gain your definitions you consider valid?
AntonDahmer
Dec 4 '16
In every definition I can find theism is described as a belief in at least one God of some sort, atheism is a rejection of theism therefore not a belief in a god or gods, which it seems would make atheism not a religion. Can you explain to me where my logic failed?However by definition atheism isn't a religion
Atheism is a rejection of theism and theism is not a religion but a worldview.
AntonDahmer
Dec 4 '16
I don't follow authorities to the detriment of my own free thought, but to have a intellectual debate progress we would have to agree and understand to the definitions of basic terms like theist, and atheist for example. I still don't understand, and would like you to explain, exactly how an atheist can be religious? Theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods, religion is the belief and worship of a god or gods, so exactly how would a theist be one with out the other? I understand you didn't say that atheism in itself is a religion, and I apologize if I worded it that way, but you did state that you can be an atheist and religious, again I would ask you how? For your example of buhddism I do understand that many Buddhists are atheist, im not sure but I have heard that some worship God's, but by definition it would make it not a religion, I would be very open to your explanation of how a atheistic religion would work, but so far it seems your just anti authority which begs the question to me of where do the explanations of these terms come from for you?
AntonDahmer
Dec 4 '16
If atheism is a rejection of the supernatural, then how can it be religious. All the major religions have supernatural aspects. The excepted use of the word religion implies belief in the supernatural, what does religion mean to you, because it seems to directly contradict itself when you say atheistic religion. To repeat my response from your Buddhism example earlier it's widely accepted as a atheistic system and not religion.Could you please site a religious scholar that would define religion in a whay that atheism could coexist within it? For your last question, if you created a philosohy where your followers were called satanist I would consider it legitimate, because I don't consider satanism one system at all. I see satanism throughout the years as various similar, but unconnected movements usually based on the rejection of an established religion, one example being LaVeyan satanism from the late 60's to today, largely as a response to conservative Christianity in the United States. As a final question I would be very interested to know where you gain your definitions you consider valid?
How would my followers be called Satanists?
Satanism is a religion because Satan is a mythological character that binds different groups together with shared symbolism (such as the pentagram and the sigil of baphomet). There are no rules that states you can't practice religion in atheistic ways because atheism simply is a rejection of supernaturalism and nothing more.
AntonDahmer
Dec 4 '16
Really all I'm saying is religion is defined as belief in God or gods, atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods. If there are systems of belief that do not require the belief in a God or gods then why would you refer to them as religions instead of simply philosophies? If you do not accept modern definitions then what else would you use?
If atheism is a rejection of the supernatural, then how can it be religious. All the major religions have supernatural aspects. The excepted use of the word religion implies belief in the supernatural, what does religion mean to you, because it seems to directly contradict itself when you say atheistic religion. To repeat my response from your Buddhism example earlier it's widely accepted as a atheistic system and not religion.Could you please site a religious scholar that would define religion in a whay that atheism could coexist within it? For your last question, if you created a philosohy where your followers were called satanist I would consider it legitimate, because I don't consider satanism one system at all. I see satanism throughout the years as various similar, but unconnected movements usually based on the rejection of an established religion, one example being LaVeyan satanism from the late 60's to today, largely as a response to conservative Christianity in the United States. As a final question I would be very interested to know where you gain your definitions you consider valid?
How would my followers be called Satanists?
Satanism is a religion because Satan is a mythological character that binds different groups together with shared symbolism (such as the pentagram and the sigil of baphomet). There are no rules that states you can't practice religion in atheistic ways because atheism simply is a rejection of supernaturalism and nothing more.
AntonDahmer
Dec 5 '16
Well first their is still an active debate on whether or not Buddhism would be considered a religion, and secondly if a religion can be practiced as a philosophy then why not just describe as a philosophy? It seem you are going to great lengths, for some reason, to find the connection when a simpler explanation would be that there are systems of belief like Christianity that are religions and systems like atheistic satanism that are secular philosophies. What is CoS? Are you referring to the church of satan, if so like I said I'm aware that the church uses religion differently than I have been but they clearly aren't using it literally, I believe LaVey also mentions that any activity one gains pleasure from could be there religion meaning it's a clear metaphor. He seems to use it as a way for atheists to mirror the importance theists place in the religions they practice, but in a secular manner that could apply to atheist, the majority of the bible and Laveys teachings in general are not necessarily meant to be taken literally, it over dramatized for effect. You keep saying there are no rules to restrict things but where do you learn this information, like I asked earlier what religious scholars do you read? Where did you get this definition A religion is a group of beliefs and practices based on mythological characters, because this is not a definition that is accepted by the majority at least here in the United states it's not?
AntonDahmer
Dec 5 '16
Jesus wouldn't be considered a mythological character to Christians so are you just wording it that way to allow atheism to fit into your definition of religion?
Really all I'm saying is religion is defined as belief in God or gods, atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods. If there are systems of belief that do not require the belief in a God or gods then why would you refer to them as religions instead of simply philosophies? If you do not accept modern definitions then what else would you use?
A religion is a group of beliefs and practices based on mythological characters. There are no rules that states that religion has to be theistic. Buddhism is an approved worldreligion despite the fact that most Buddhists are atheists. A religion can be practiced as a philosophy. CoS refers themselves as a religious philosophy.
AntonDahmer
Dec 5 '16
We is your definition not simple? the one I sited from Oxford dictionary seems to work just fine without trying to force secular ideaolgies into it. They are all different but they have a few things in common, the fact that they believe and worship a god or gods, and if someone is an atheist how can they also be Christian?like I asked earlier what religious scholars do you read? Where did you get this definition A religion is a group of beliefs and practices based on mythological characters, because this is not a definition that is accepted by the majority at least here in the United states it's not?
It's my definition based on my context understanding. We can't use a simple defintion because the mythological beings or gods are the only thing that unites the religious groups. They are so different in their beliefs and practices even the groups of the same religion...
AntonDahmer
Dec 5 '16
Jesus might have been a historical person and your assuming that he's a mythological god character, how do you know? If someone takes the bible completely metaphorically why would you still consider them Christian, it's just some one reading stories at that point, and again how do you know the bible is mythology? Your making these assumptions that I don't think you can prove, I'm an atheist myself but I also know that I don't have the knowledge to say that its a fact the bible is mythological. Why would you be the one to come up with the definitions of these terms like philosophy, religion, theist, and atheist, the ones you have shown are not the ones practiced by the mAjority of people or religious scholars? Is it an anti authority thing, because their is clearly an established definition for the word religion that the mAjority of people and scholars agree with. You have responded with a few contradictions for example secular christian, secular is used to mean without religion so how can they be a Christian. Your literally saying someone is without a religion but belongs to a religion.and secondly if a religion can be practiced as a philosophy then why not just describe as a philosophy?
Because it's not a philosophy... Religion (origins in latine meaning "to bind") separates from both philosophy and ideology as the only thing that unites all the religious groups are the mythological god characters. By being honest and admit the fact that Satanism is a religion then you includes both theistic Satanists and atheistic Satanists as they are all united by the character of Satan.
Jesus wouldn't be considered a mythological character to Christians so are you just wording it that way to allow atheism to fit into your definition of religion?
Jesus is both a historical person and a mythological god character. Modern secular Christians (such as grunvigianism) believe the bible shall be understood metaforical because they accepts the fact that the bible is mythology. Many Christians especially here in Europe accepts the fact of evolution.
AntonDahmer
Dec 6 '16
No, the bible being mythology is not a fact. I'm a atheist, my opinion is that the bible is myths but I see that in reality I can't demonstrate this, there for I have enough acknowledge not to ignorantly assert things. can you demonstrate that the bible is a myth? why aren't those thing a contradiction, you are not represented by the mAjority, why would I listen to your definitions above the mAjority of recognized scholars? you fail to recognize that the many different sects of Christians, Muslims, and Jews are in no way close to how different the beliefs are in satanism. you can begin passively insulting me if you want, but the truth remains you refuse to provide any support for your claims, other than just saying based on your experience your definitions make more sense.Jesus might have been a historical person and your assuming that he's a mythological god character, how do you know? If someone takes the bible completely metaphorically why would you still consider them Christian, it's just some one reading stories at that point, and again how do you know the bible is mythology? Your making these assumptions that I don't think you can prove, I'm an atheist myself but I also know that I don't have the knowledge to say that its a fact the bible is mythological. Why would you be the one to come up with the definitions of these terms like philosophy, religion, theist, and atheist, the ones you have shown are not the ones practiced by the mAjority of people or religious scholars? Is it an anti authority thing, because their is clearly an established definition for the word religion that the mAjority of people and scholars agree with. You have responded with a few contradictions for example secular christian, secular is used to mean without religion so how can they be a Christian. Your literally saying someone is without a religion but belongs to a religion.
The bible is mythology and that's why it's interpreted differently by Christians which leads to different Christian sects and cults. There is no debate in that because it's just a fact.
Secular religion is not a contradiction. Atheistic religion is not a contradiction. Spiritual religion is not a contradiction. Theistic religion is not a contradiction. You can't put religion into a box and say "it's a belief in a god or gods" because there is a disagreement what a god is! Religion means "bind together" in latine and one mythological god character whatever it's Jesus, Satan, Buddha or Allah can unite different groups with completely different beliefs and practices. If religion was a system then there would not be so many different religious groups with different beliefs and practices...
You seems to argue more than accepting reality as it is. When you look out at reality then you will see how different religious groups are and you don't have the right to say that the atheistic religious groups are not religions just because YOU define a god as you do. Metaphorical reading of mythology is not only an atheistic thing. I'm a theistic Satanist and I consider also mythology to be metaphorical because the divine forces are beyond our imagination. Many Christians today reading the bible metaphorical and that's why they can accept the fact of evolution.
AntonDahmer
Dec 6 '16
I wasn't referring to LaVeyan satanism, I was referring to the mAjority not agreeing with your definitions for words like theist, atheist, religion, and mythology. not just the mAjority of people, but also the mAjority of experts studying that field.
You are not represented by the mAjority, why would I listen to your definitions above the mAjority of recognized scholars?
According to the majority "LaVeyan Satanism" is not Satanism because Satanism is a religion...
AntonDahmer
Dec 6 '16
Are you using mythology to simply refer to stories and not specifically untrue stories? If so I understand what your saying, but again it seems like your so rebellious and anti authority you have largely rejected societies accepted definitions for terms. that's cool but it makes a debate pretty much impossible, if we can't even agree on something like what the word religion means.
No, the bible being mythology is not a fact.
The fact that the bible is mythology does not prove Christianity to be false because mythology can't be proven right or wrong.
the many different sects of Christians, Muslims, and Jews are in no way close to how different the beliefs are in satanism.
The difference between Christianity and Satanism is the difference between Jesus and Satan... The reason why there can't be a bible nor an authority to define Satanism is because the character of Satan battled the authorities in the myths. Study middle eastern mythology if you don't believe me and you will learn about the character of Satan...
AntonDahmer
Dec 7 '16
Why wouldn't it make sense to define religion as the belief in and worship of God's, every major religion would fit into it. I find it pretty funny that you feel were illiterate while in the mean time we are the biggest force in the world, not that I can't have fun at the stupidity we legislate here but theirs an obvious power structure in the world which would require us to at least be "literate" to maintain our dominant position. If you accepts the definition of the majority then you can't be an atheistic Satanist. explain this please, they have nothing to do with each other.Are you using mythology to simply refer to stories and not specifically untrue stories? If so I understand what your saying, but again it seems like your so rebellious and anti authority you have largely rejected societies accepted definitions for terms. that's cool but it makes a debate pretty much impossible, if we can't even agree on something like what the word religion means.
Mythology is a collection of myths and the study of them (I can recommend you to read some works of Joseph Campbell who was a mythologist). You can't debunk the bible because the bible is mythology and mythology is not untrue stories in itself. The problem with the majority definition of religion is that it accepts only the theistic definitions of gods when they define religion as "the belief in or worship of gods". I would like to point out that US is a very religious illiterate country...
AntonDahmer
Dec 7 '16
Nevertheless, since the majority of this discussion has been some what off topic I would like to ask you a question, what does theistic satanism contain? Where could I start learning, I have considered myself an LaVeyan satanism but for a long time now I view the church as bullshit, I would enjoy exploring something which I believe to have connection with but online if you try to research it the results are obvious fakes to get attention. To give you some background ever since I was little I have seen things, one which is very close to something called amdusias. Since you have more expertise in this field I would appreciate any form of guidance you could offer.
Why wouldn't it make sense to define religion as the belief in and worship of God's, every major religion would fit into it. I find it pretty funny that you feel were illiterate while in the mean time we are the biggest force in the world, not that I can't have fun at the stupidity we legislate here but theirs an obvious power structure in the world which would require us to at least be "literate" to maintain our dominant position. If you accepts the definition of the majority then you can't be an atheistic Satanist. explain this please, they have nothing to do with each other.Are you using mythology to simply refer to stories and not specifically untrue stories? If so I understand what your saying, but again it seems like your so rebellious and anti authority you have largely rejected societies accepted definitions for terms. that's cool but it makes a debate pretty much impossible, if we can't even agree on something like what the word religion means.
Mythology is a collection of myths and the study of them (I can recommend you to read some works of Joseph Campbell who was a mythologist). You can't debunk the bible because the bible is mythology and mythology is not untrue stories in itself. The problem with the majority definition of religion is that it accepts only the theistic definitions of gods when they define religion as "the belief in or worship of gods". I would like to point out that US is a very religious illiterate country...
