|
Post by robert on Sept 9, 2015 0:16:11 GMT
Which makes more sense, Theistic or Atheistic Satanism?
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Sept 9, 2015 7:13:04 GMT
Neither?
|
|
|
Post by juju on Sept 9, 2015 8:53:37 GMT
Why call it Satanism if you don't believe in Satan?
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Sept 9, 2015 11:06:42 GMT
There is an argument to be made for atheistic Satanism
The Church of Satan (which I believe are generally actually atheist) are doing a lot of good pointing out the Christian biases of US society in cases of church/state separation. Putting up a religious monument on distributing religious texts in school seems benign when it is done by one's own religion, and still pretty much OK when other mainstream religions want to do it, but the point is really driven home when The Church of Satan wants to do what the other religions are allowed to.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Sept 9, 2015 13:55:10 GMT
Well yeah, but why call it the Church of Satan, if it's nothing to do with Satan?
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Sept 9, 2015 14:08:16 GMT
It's symbolic. Like you don't have to believe in God to be a member of the Anglican church Anyway I want to know whether atheistic Satanism means you believe in Satan but not in God. And if so ... whuh?
|
|
|
Post by juju on Sept 9, 2015 14:19:58 GMT
I think it's bizarre. I can totally understand the point about church / state separation, but why would an atheistic group want to name itself after a biblical character?
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Sept 9, 2015 14:38:48 GMT
For maximum effect. Only when faced with people practising a religion that they have been told is evil incarnate will some realise that others may see some aspects of their religion in much the same light. So, in a Christian society, having to give Satanists the same rights as Christians have lets the Christians fully understand what privileges they might have.
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Sept 9, 2015 14:58:52 GMT
So, when some Florida schools allowed bibles to be distributed, the response could either be the boring atheist "Well, then let us also distribute Darwin's Origin of Species, or Dawkins' The God Delusion", or this group could simply say "Well, then that means we can distribute The Satanic Children's Big Book of Activities." Which do you think would drive home the point better without even having to know what any of the books were about?
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Sept 9, 2015 15:06:06 GMT
So, when some Florida schools allowed bibles to be distributed, the response could either be the boring atheist "Well, then let us also distribute Darwin's Origin of Species, or Dawkins' The God Delusion", or this group could simply say "Well, then that means we can distribute The Satanic Children's Big Book of Activities." Or ... a list of interesting verses!
|
|
|
Post by juju on Sept 9, 2015 15:06:42 GMT
I get all that, but that's not the point. The point is, why call yourself a 'church' if you are not one? If are not actually a church, and you don't believe in Satan, why call yourself the Church of Satan?
But if there is such a thing as a 'church' that believes in 'Satan' then yeah - as a religion they should get equal rights with other religions. But kept separate from the state, of course.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Sept 9, 2015 15:07:39 GMT
Suspicious ... why don't we have any devil smilies at EF?
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Sept 9, 2015 15:16:47 GMT
I get all that, but that's not the point. The point is, why call yourself a 'church' if you are not one? If are not actually a church, and you don't believe in Satan, why call yourself the Church of Satan? Because of exactly what I said above. In order to be "equal" in rights to a religion and face them on their own ground, you have to also be a religion and essentially call yourself a church. Whether you believe or not. I have heard several rumbles from atheist jumping through hoop after hoop trying to set up non-profit/charity organisations in the US who found out that if they had instead wanted to start a church they would get the same benefits with almost none of the red tape. Setting up a "protest church" points out this insanity, amongst other things. Though I realise this is probably getting away from the original Satanism question into a whole other one of the rights of the religionless vs. those of the enchurched.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 9, 2015 15:29:00 GMT
It's interesting.Like Julie I've never really seen the point of calling yourself the CHurch of Satan though if you're not a church and you're nothing to do with Satan. I know they're trying to make a valid point but they're probably alienating people who might otherwise support them
|
|
|
Post by juju on Sept 9, 2015 15:30:11 GMT
I dunno, I think it's the same question. To me, atheistic 'Satanism' doesn't make sense if it's nothing to do with Satan: from what you say it's just a protest group who've borrowed the name.
If I was a real Satanist (i.e I really believed in Satan) I might be pissed off by that, in fact.
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Sept 9, 2015 16:49:43 GMT
They might, you'd have to ask a theistic Satanist how they feel. The Church of Satan does, however, claim to be an honest church, and may have real believer members amongst the "protest" crowd for all I know.
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Sept 9, 2015 16:54:46 GMT
I know they're trying to make a valid point but they're probably alienating people who might otherwise support them Who would that be? All I can say is that the atheist community seems to be pretty pleased about this group being able to accomplish the things they do by simply showing up and wanting whatever the Christians want under the guise of religious freedom, when they themselves can only dream of such feats with their more convoluted weaponry of reason and rationality.
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Sept 9, 2015 17:31:00 GMT
Are you saying that if one is a Christian one can't have reason and rationality?
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Sept 9, 2015 18:03:05 GMT
No, of course not. But they seem to be the only things atheism has to fight with, and that is just not enough in a lot of the arguments they get into. They are not in fights with *most* Christians.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 9, 2015 18:31:53 GMT
Who would that be? Well me, for instance. I agree with promoting the separation of church and state but I would not wish to join a group that called itself 'CHurch of Satan.'
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Sept 9, 2015 18:46:12 GMT
In my tradition we tend to think of Satan being against our values of love and care for others. A Church of Satan would be an organization where greed, egotism, hatred etc were championed. I can't imagine any of the beloved atheists of my acquaintance associating themselves with such an organization. Most of the atheists I know support the same values that I do: integrity, fairness, love and support of those who are destitute and marginalized.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Sept 9, 2015 21:32:36 GMT
Well their website looks extremely cheesy and B movie-ish. I'm guessing it's all tongue in cheek? www.churchofsatan.com
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 9, 2015 22:18:34 GMT
What Kye said. I agree with what they want to achieve but not the way that they are achieving it. You could - let's be fair - probably get just the same reaction from Conservative Christians by demanding to distribute Hindu, Muslim, or Sikh literature in schools in the US. I don't see the point in calling yourself 'Satanists' if you don't believe that Satan exists (though I suppose the same could be said for Pastafarians, who are trying to do a similar thing though in a slightly less controversial way).
It would be so much easier if separation of church and state were simply a matter of common sense, wouldn't it?I think most sensible people on either side would agree with that. Unfortunately, some will continue to insist that children pray every morning in school whether they want to or not.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 9, 2015 22:20:27 GMT
Back to the OP though I don't think that either makes sense. I've outlined vaguely the reasons why atheistic Satanism makes no sense.I would hope that the arguments againt theistic Satanism would be self evident.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Sept 10, 2015 8:12:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 10, 2015 15:54:00 GMT
The thing is though, as I said, surely Muslims could easily make the same point and just as well. Probably better in fact as I daresay that the average fundie Christian is more scared of Islam than of the CHurch of Satan.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Sept 10, 2015 18:01:07 GMT
I thought the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was pure satire.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Sept 10, 2015 21:51:15 GMT
I thought the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was pure satire. No, it has lots of cheese as well.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 10, 2015 22:30:55 GMT
and a bit of bolognaise and garlic
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Sept 10, 2015 23:48:37 GMT
Yum!
|
|