My point was that the article was wrong in describing Satanists as atheists--if you worship a supernatural being, you are a theist. Period. Or possibly a deist, but we're really splitting hairs. To be a true atheist, one must reject ALL supernatural divinity. As I am not an atheist, I do not believe I am qualified to answer that question. I would have to guess that most atheists would probably not be bothered by it, but may take the time to draw a distinction similar to the one I did above.
Well, someone clearly missed the main point of the OP. Satanists call themselves atheists. They are not really atheists though are they? What a shock? They are Satanists. Now, if you have a bunch of Satanist spewing Satanism and calling it atheism - what does that mean for atheism? Mayeb you should back up to the history of eth early church and see why we thought it was necessary to create a doctrine, seminaries to proect the validity of the faith? Why most organization have a founding doctrine, why we have things like copyright laws and protections. But Satanists are not actually atheists? Therefore there is no threat. Well, I hate to say this, but if an apple computer store sells boats rather than computers, its not really an apply computer store. Nevertheless, you just walked into a high pressure sales pitch for a boat you don't want. The same goes for atheism. Someone concludes, honestly, that there is no God, and turns to those organizations that claim to represent atheism - and what do they find? Well, let me tall you about the raving policies that are less than factual but are highly nihilistic. They are the TRUE mantel of atheism. Welcome to the high pressure boat sale of atheism. Seriously, what protections does atheism have from this? Do you think it would have been good for the Catholic Church to ask, "You know, we allow priests a lot of unfettered access to children, what happens if a pedophile slips into that role?" Well, they too thought that this would never happen. Well, Satanists ARE publically claiming to be atheists, and at least one member of the atheist community has seen them openly and covertly at atheist functions. What does that mean for atheism?
That is not what your article said. It called them "atheists" or "agnostics." Your assertion above makes it sound like they quoted a bunch of Satanists or performed some kind of survey. And if a Satanist did call herself an atheist, she would be wrong, in my view. Correct. They are theists/deists most likely. Uh? Um? Nothing at all? For example, liberals like to call tax increases "investments." It does not make them so. Uh? Me no get. I'm not sure that argument is any more valid than trying to claim that the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of Christianity. And I think you have presented something of a fallacy--even if Satanists docall themselves atheists, it does not follow that atheists are Satanists. Just as not all Christians are Catholics, not all atheists are Satanists which seems to be the non sequitur you are trying to validate here. Again, uh? Not sure it needs any. But there is always intellectual rigor. And a person who calls someone who worships a deity an atheist seems to be lacking any. Another non sequitur. The Catholic Church is a highly-organized institution with centralized hierarchical leadership and a decidedly monolithic catechism. By contrast, atheism is not an organization, but rather simply a noun describing a condition of non belief. Replace "atheism" with "football fans" or "scrapbookers" and the analogy holds--just as football fans and scrapbookers are no monolith, neither are atheists. To be sure, some atheists join organizations that promote an atheistic world view, but it is not analogous to, say, being a member of the LDS church, or being a Presbyterian. That some Satanists might participate in atheist organizations is not surprising at all--no more surprising than finding out that you may encounter Lutherans, Catholics, and Baptists all congregated together at the local Rotary. Or that you might find Jews, Rastafarians, and born-again Christians all joining a civic organization like the United Way or the Boy Scouts. Probably not much at all.
Great, if a Satanist calls him or herself a atheist, IYO, its wrong. They are still doing it. Not according to their doctrine, which views teh father of lies as a force of nature. You read the article correct? That would be the public front. Well, as atheists do not believe in God, and neither do Satanists - at least publically, and there is no formal doctrine upon which to separate atheism from Satanism ... Guess what - a Satanist can make a very valid claim to being a true atheist - and atheism and the community of atheists has no way of denying the nihilist focus do they? Oh, but you don;t want it to be so, therefore it is not No, you don;t want to get, there is a difference. You are not smart in one context and then too stupid to understand a point in another context. You get the point just fine, you just don;t want to acknoweldge it. Teh Westboro Baptis Church is a Christian church. However, they are rejected by the vast majority of the Christians out there because we point to our scipture, teaching, doctrine, and point to their actions as a grotesque usurpation of the church. The same thing applies to the neo-Nazi church. We have safeguard in that prevent the loonies from accurately claiming that their faith represents actual Christianity. Atheism has non of that. So any quake can claim his voews are atheist. And in this case, Satanists ARE doing it. Satanists, IYO, are not actually atheists, but there they are IN YOUR COMMUNITY claiming TO BE YOU. Get it yet? Of course not Its not my problem. Satanists aren't calling themselves Christians, and if they did, I could easily look at what they preach and contrast it with gospels and actual seminary instructions. Unfortunately, when you compare what Satanism has to say with atheism ... quite a bit of it matches. A non sequitur would be ignoring two different examples of organziation practices to claim that the Catholic church is the only thing being portrayed as needing organizational protections. In fact, its an outright strawman. If you were no obtusely avoiding the point about the apples store logo being used to sucker people in, you'd get the point. But you don;t want to acknoweldge the point. The point is there nonetheless. There are many Christian faiths that are decentralized, and they too have had issues with people abusing in the name. The same applies to both Suna and Shia Islam, one highly centralized and one highly decentralized - both approaches offer specific protections and vulnerabilities to the threat that atheism faces - which is neither centralized or decentralized .... just a single sentence apparently. A single stentence that has large organziations building around it. Large organziations that are attracting Satanists and their scripture. Oh well, I am sure it will all be fine. Well, turning a blind eye to a threat is a good way to wind up dead. Keep going atheists. At some point, as the nhilistic ferver of atheism crests, someone in atheism is going to exposed with ill intent. Well, he's not really a atheist - he's a communist, a satanists, terrorist, etc. but never an atheist. And at some point, people are going to conclude that atheism seems to be particularly vulnerable to these kinds of unscrupulous charlatans. Well, what do you expect? You have organziations that exist around nothing but personalities - organziations devoid of standards and guidelines, organziations with no firewall of acceptance to prevent abuse from charatans. Again, atheists can distance themselves from it, but the simple fact of the matter is that its happening, and atheists have no real way to deny that any of these guys are not atheists. Atheism is JUST the belief in no God. And by that one, I guess hatred of a God you know is real to the point where you claim he is not real counts does it not? They simply do not believe in him. They refuse to believe in him. That is atheism is it not?
An atheist wouldn't even think to care about somebody calling themselves a "Satanist." Go for it. Kinda funny I guess. Not my thing though. It doesn't matter.
Stereotyping does not improve any confidence in your sincerity. The "religion" described as the Church of Satan has nothing to do with Judeo-Christianity or its version of heaven and hell or Satan as a fallen Angel.
THat is what they claim publically. Maybe you should talk to those who have left the church, who have actively courted demons. Maybe you should wonder at a church that claims to pre-date the Christian concept of Satan, but still refers to itself as the church of Satan - not some Norse or pgan pe-Christian God. Maybe you should wonder why we call the subject of their worship the father of lies? There is no miseducation about Satanism, except from Satanists themselves. I do like this atheist reasoning though, the public declarations of teh church of Satan must be afforded the utmost respect and accuracy, even when they appear on the surface to be rather obvious lies - even when former particpants are profuse in their statements that Satanism is not quite so innocent. However, the Bible is the most inaccurate thing that ever exist, Jesus himself was a myth, and Christians are the cause of all the world's evil? Atheists, when you find yourself defending Satanism and scurging Christians .... what more proof do you need that your perceptions and actions are out of whack?
The words "Satan" and "Christ" don't carry the same emotional weight for atheists. There is a name for this type of argument and I'm sure someone will chime in with it. Where you expect that the way something "sounds" will be all the proof one needs. It doesn't sound the same to atheists. It's just two fictional characters. One sect openly believes that the fictional characters are real and insists everyone live their lives accordingly. One sect at least claims they don't believe fiction and don't care what others do with their lives. At a glance, I'd take the second one. They seem more reasonable. But I suspect others with experiences different from my own might disagree.
I think you're just talking about the fallacy of appeal to emotion. The strength of the argument depends on the impact of the terms used rather than their meaning.
There are 2 forms of Satanism. The more commonly thought of form involves animal or human sacrifices and devil worship. The less commonly thought of form is not a religion at all but is merely a school of thought. Philosophical Satanism is something that Anton LaVey came up with as sort of a mockery of religion but also as a reinterpretation of the creation story in the Bible. One of the stranger aspects of Judaism and Christianity is the idea that the Tree of Knowledge led to mankind's downfall. In LaVey's reinterpretation, Satan or the Tempter is a figure of liberation. By giving us knowledge and self-awareness, we evolved past the state of just being servants to a deity. Satan's story of rebellion against God is seen as more of a metaphorical statement of individualism. Someone who considers him or herself as a Philosophical Satanist doesn't believe in any deities, afterlife, or supernatural beings, but simply values rational self-interest, individualism, and the pursuit of knowledge. I'm not of this school myself, but there are elements of it that I can relate to.
But in the final analysis, you are trying to conflate a syntactic error with a nonexistent belief system. That some Satanists chose to errantly call themselves atheists is nothing more than a grammatical error. And please stop trying to establish that I am an atheist. I am not. You may call me a skeptic if you wish--something that I am.
Seemingly, what you understand about Satanism and what those others you describe, that philosophical Satanist would more appropriately be called a 'Rationalist'... one who believes in rationalization and the process of making up excuses to hide or cover up a particular truth. Your entire statement above is littered with such excuses being used as justifications to support your personal agenda and priorities.
#1 - atheism is an entirely emotional position. #2 - atheists would have a huge problem with a Christian sitting in their organizations attempting to hep them define their core beliefs and values ... but not a Satanists ... Explain to me why that is not emotional? #3 - explain to me why atheists, if they are atheists, are concerened with accurate quotation and understanding of eth Satanic Bible, but not the Synoptic gospels that is regularly insulted by atheists? #4 - I think you fundamentally misunderstand what Satanism is. The idea, the crack pot idea mind you, that Satanism is the harmless Pagan religion that seems inordinately fixated on mockinh Christian rituals should point you in the firm direction of something being amiss. Pagans do not spend a great deal of time worrying about Christians in their doctrine. They are concerened with defining their beliefs and practices - not ours. Satanism however, is all about undermining God. All about undermining Christianity, Islam, Juddaism - or anything else that would drawman kind closer to God. So when you have a group of Satanists openly proclaiming their beliefe in your midst, and they are tolerated because you believe in neither the devil no God, but Christians are actively attacked .... Again, explain to me how that is either a sustainably logical position or in any way shape or form not emotional? We can tolerate and even invote in people who openly worship evil because they call themselves atheists. Christians? Muslims? Jews? Hindus? Scum of the earth and devoid of brains. Nice.
If Atheists don't care about those things, and if you are an Atheist, then why are you engaged in things that you "don't care about"?
Again, a reminder, there is a reason we call Satan the father of lies. http://shareyourstorynow.org/2006/05/26/satanist-turns-to-jesus/ You really think ritualized drug use, sexual slavery, witchcraft, and the excesses of self worship are just a simple mockery of Christainity? They are a lifestyle choice - and a choice that has grave consequences. LeVay failed to mention these things did he? No crap. And these guys are 'atheists'. Sitting in atheist organziations and helping to write atheist propoganda. Do we see a link in the rise of modern atheist militancy toward religion? I certainly do.
Someone already told you that (if you are Christian and if you have read your Bible thoroughly). Look at : "1Cr 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 1Cr 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? " Then in "1Cr 12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but [that] the members should have the same care one for another."
Well, Inc you see the changing standards again. Buddhists are atheists on one hand. Agnostics are atheists on one hand. Even light Christians who are culturally Christians can be accepted as atheists. Einstein, who believed in God, heck even he is an atheist. Unless you are bad. Then, those guys in prison who do not believe in God but do not ctively classify themselves as atheists? Not atheists. Satanists? Not atheists because they are considered bad. I hope people can see the stark difference between these two ideologies. Anyone can be a Christian. We'll still claim him even when they mess up, or at least to the point where their actions and failure to repent become so at odds with the church and its teachings that they are caste out. Atheists? Well, you do good we'll over look a few things. You do bad - go screw yourself. Hence - God believing Einstein - atheist. Stalin - no Gods here - something not atheist. Pope Loe (saved Rome from Attila the hun) Pope Urban II (started Crusades) both Christians - both human.
In a sense you are correct. Discourses taken on the basis of your desired form of logic and your chosen philosophy would of necessity stand in opposition to that logic and philosophy with which I prefer. Therefore, there can be no "effective" discourse to be found between us.
Seeking clarification by asking a question is not being obtuse.... UNLESS of course you are suggesting that scientists are also being obtuse during the questioning process(es) that they undertake.
It's very simple: theism = the belief in the existence of God or gods. Adding the prefix a- in standard English modifies the word to which it's added by returning its logical inverse. Therefore, atheism = the disbelief in the existence of God or gods. As I said, very simple.
In the context of my prior statements in this thread, the question was a ridiculous one. Sorry, no "gotcha!"
