Page all of 4 1234>
Topic Options
#35382 - 02/10/10 02:17 AM Internalizing Satanistic Philosophy: The Bible
MelanosDivinity Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/08/10
Posts: 29
Loc: Port Gibson, Mississippi
As I will be ordering my very own Satanic Bible, I would appreciate it if anyone could help me to get started.

Is it enough to just read the words as they are written,
or is there something more to really assimilating one's
mind and soul to the many scriptures within?

I have always believed that just reading a book isn't enough
one must comprehend what he is reading.

An example would be: While in class, many of my classmates would gaze at the white board with direct eyes, yet they weren't direct in terms of specifically being aligned with the information written on the board, but rather an unseen entity, that hides within the space between their gaze and the board.


Thank you for your tips and advice on reading from The Satanic Bible. I really appreciate your help.
_________________________
Take your OWN pen, draw your OWN path.-denmark

Top
#35390 - 02/10/10 09:13 AM Re: Internalizing Satanistic Philosophy: The Bible [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
I agree with MawhrinSkel - don't fake anything in a mistaken assumption that "you'll take it on faith now and understand it all later".

As one who has only just read it recently, you'll find most of it written in a fairly straightforward manner. It's not all mystical scripture and shadowy metaphor that you'll have to study for years. There are some parts you may not understand the first time through, but, if I may be so bold, it seems to me that upon reading you should either "click" with the philosophy or it will be obvious that you will not.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#35394 - 02/10/10 09:53 AM Re: Internalizing Satanistic Philosophy: The Bible [Re: Autodidact]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
There are times when reading The Satanic Bible for the first time is like ... well... a religious experience; an epiphany of knowing that you've been "something" all of your life, and damned if this isn't IT. That was what it was like for me on that long flight from JFK to Istanbul. Bu the time I landed, I knew it was for me.

For others, it's very much a mulling over process, taking bits and pieces and seeing how they all fall into place, eventually coming to the conclusion that this little paperback could indeed change your life. For others, it's a "good read, had some good ideas, but on to other things."

Pretty much a key/lock situation to my mind. If that book fits the lock of your mind, it will be opened. If not, take it for what it's worth and move on. No harm, no foul.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#35404 - 02/10/10 11:22 AM Re: Internalizing Satanistic Philosophy: The Bible [Re: Jake999]
Noctuary Offline
pledge


Registered: 02/01/10
Posts: 92
Good question. When I picked up the book the first time I Was 15. And the eyes that read it were very different then the eyes that read it now. In fact to be honest..I read it. Put it down. Thought ok, this is a good read. Very practical. Full of common sense. Then as time passed and I would return to it and with new experiences had a new understanding of it. It really pushed me to want to read more and more. I see it as a gateway drug to common sense!
_________________________
Devils speak of the way in which she'll manifest

Top
#35444 - 02/10/10 07:54 PM Re: Internalizing Satanistic Philosophy: The Bible [Re: MelanosDivinity]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



I first came across the name of LaVey in an article in Rolling Stone magazine, which I believe came out in the late 1980’s or the early 1990’s. The written content was interesting, but I was very much attracted to the photos I found in the article.

The guys looked strange, but very interesting. He was dressed entirely in black and with the shaved head and the demonic beard and those narrow eyes. Then there was his blond companion named Blanche Barton, who looked sexy and somehow very dangerous. They were quite compelling. I also noticed that this fellow LaVey had a strange tombstone coffee table and other wonderful and bizarre objects in his possession.

I actually didn’t get a chance to buy and read The Satanic Bible until early 1994. I found it by chance, along with The Satanic Rituals and The Compleat Witch in a good bookstore in inner Sydney.

I bought all three books and took them home to read.

At the time I had just started my university studies and there were a lot of good books around and a lot of re – evaluation and fresh thinking taking place.

My own experience with Dr. LaVey’s works may be different from others.

I read The Satanic Bible and I just thought - well what’s the big deal? I mean this is just all perfect common sense and I was convinced that all one had to do was read the book and they would be convinced that it was common sense as well.

This was a naïve position - probably a case of rather dodgy solipsism.

This book just tended to sum up a lot of the fresh thinking I was engaging in and also made sense when I critically examined the sorts of philosophical positions or opinions I had more or less held dear for many years.

After reading Dr. LaVey’s works for a period of time I put them away and went on working away at what I wanted from life and the world.

I never forgot those books by Dr. LaVey though and now and then I would take them out to read. I also added The Devils Notebook and Satan Speaks and SLOAS to my collection over the years.

I began to study the books seriously again about six months ago and that led me to this lair and other excellent works, such as Dr. Michael Aquino’s ebook on the CoS, as well as current High Priest Peter Gilmour’s book. It also led to a fairly in - depth study of some of the books and films, which were considered important to LaVey and had an influence on his thinking.

Anyway I am a touch envious of anyone who is about to confront The Satanic Bible for the first time. Enjoy!

Top
#35446 - 02/10/10 08:54 PM Re: Internalizing Satanistic Philosophy: The Bible [Re: ]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
My initial reaction upon receiving TSB in the mail was excitement, not unlike what a child feels on Christmas morning. The black cover, the Pentagram, the high priest himself. Then I started reading, and I remember feeling a bit let down. I was waiting for a POW, and I never got the POW. Then I hit the keys, which only added to the anticlimactic feel.

It took some time for me to realize that it’s not about the POW. Life itself is not a POW. Life is a reality. That, I think, is the main difference between Satanism and other religious philosophies.

Life is a largely mundane existence, nonsensical, even absurd. The only thing that gives it meaning is the role we play in it. We have the power to make our lives better. That is a concept worth internalizing.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#35452 - 02/10/10 09:37 PM Re: Internalizing Satanistic Philosophy: The Bible [Re: William Wright]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3898
Loc: Vancouver, Canada

 Quote:

I have always believed that just reading a book isn't enough
one must comprehend what he is reading.

Only a certain type of individual will truly comprehend TSB, and to those individuals TSB serves as a mirror. To those people described by TSB Satanism provides a certain toolset and perspective on the world that sharpens his already keen blade.

If you don't have that "wow this is talking about me" moment, like a lightbulb going on, so to speak, you are probably wasting your time.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#35456 - 02/10/10 10:46 PM Re: Internalizing Satanistic Philosophy: The Bible [Re: Dan_Dread]
Noctuary Offline
pledge


Registered: 02/01/10
Posts: 92
My ex-fiance, the Muslim guy, read part of the Satanic Bible. That of which he could find considering he can't pick up a copy of that in Egypt! Well he actually found many things in common with the book. He believed it carried alot of common sense. He still believed it was of course incorrect. But he respected the idea of it as a common sense sort of thing. I have to give him credit for actually getting what Satanism is.
_________________________
Devils speak of the way in which she'll manifest

Top
#35458 - 02/11/10 12:15 AM Re: Internalizing Satanistic Philosophy: The Bible [Re: Dan_Dread]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Anyone who is intelligent and reads this book slowly and carefully will comprehend its contents.

LaVey didn’t want to write some piece of esoteric gibberish, in my opinion. He wanted his work to be plain and to be understood by the reader.

The reader who has completed the book will decide for him or herself whether the book is important, merely odd or interesting, or repugnant or not and than will act accordingly.

I did not have this ‘wow, this is talking to me type experience’ – again as I stated above - it was perfect common sense.

I tend to combat the assumption that if you aren’t drawn into some religious/mystical like moment, where all is revealed or where you are suddenly and completely revealed, than you are somehow excluded from being a Satanist.

I would be tempted to argue that a genuinely discerning Satanist is in fact going to be just as discerning when it comes to reading and judging The Satanic Bible for the first time.

The outcome, in this sense, will be an individual who agrees with the claims made in the work, on the basis of critical study and even testing of the work in the real world.

Regarding The Satanic Bible as a work of common sense is just one of a number of legitimate ways of evaluating this particular work in my opinion.

Top
#35460 - 02/11/10 01:04 AM Re: Internalizing Satanistic Philosophy: The Bible [Re: ]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3898
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

Anyone who is intelligent and reads this book slowly and carefully will comprehend its contents.

And yet everything about your posting history here screams that you do not. How very amusing \:\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#35461 - 02/11/10 01:15 AM Re: Internalizing Satanistic Philosophy: The Bible [Re: Dan_Dread]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



I invite you to prove your point.
Top
#35462 - 02/11/10 01:16 AM Re: Internalizing Satanistic Philosophy: The Bible [Re: MelanosDivinity]
EvilDjinn Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 31
Read it! Carefully. Take your time, understand it.

If you really want to "internalize" every bit of it, keep a notebook while you read. For the Book of Satan, I'd recommend going verse by verse. For the others I'd say go by paragraphs. So once you read a verse/paragraph, then write down, essentially, "what you think it means" even if you're just putting it in your own words.

It'll be slow but you'll be familiar with every bit of it.

...anyone else bothered by the word "Satanistic?" It conjures up other things in my mind than the good Doctor's work. But to each their own, I guess.


Edited by EvilDjinn (02/11/10 01:16 AM)

Top
#35463 - 02/11/10 01:20 AM Re: Internalizing Satanistic Philosophy: The Bible [Re: Dan_Dread]
Miss May Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/27/09
Posts: 66
Loc: sebastopol, CA
I think you should try to comprehend TSB when you read it. As William Wright stated, your opinion of it may sink in over time. The more you strive to understand it, the more you may gain from it. Whether you decide to apply it to your everyday life is your own choice.
For me, it was clear that TSB was describing an honest way to view things as opposed to a mystical experience. It made instant sense to me.

Top
#35464 - 02/11/10 01:27 AM Re: Internalizing Satanistic Philosophy: The Bible [Re: ]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3898
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
What, examples of your use of exegesis to make TSB agree with you, rather than vice versa? Examples of your posts nuthugging Aquino and his theism? Examples of your attempted revisionism history of Anton LaVey?

You'll have to be more specific. I'll tell you one thing though, you certainly don't set off my Satanist detector. You don't smell right.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#35472 - 02/11/10 07:52 AM Re: Internalizing Satanistic Philosophy: The Bible [Re: Dan_Dread]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
Methinks the young lad is trying too hard to be something he's not. That's the vibe I've always gotten from him anyway.

Reading this book should feel like the gears (is that what they're called?) of a lock clicking into place. There doesn't have to be an epiphany, not even a mild one, for the book to be valid to you. I didn't have a POW! either, but I didn't expect to. Never bring any expectations into the reading of a book, or anything else for that matter. Take your experiences for what they are, not for what you THINK they should be.

Aside from the rituals, TSB is all of, what? Thirty pages (if that)? There really isn't that much to glean from it if you've been living it all of your life. LaVey didn't speak in couched terms either, so how much left is there to over analyze? I think I've read it twice, and I don't feel the need to keep poring over particular chapters or sections. That starts to smack of dogma, in trying to 'absorb' the tenets of a belief system or philosophy because I just couldn't wrap my head around the ideas presented the first time I read the book.

In short, The Satanic Bible is just not that 'deep', and it sounds as if these newbies are trying to read too much into it.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#35473 - 02/11/10 09:47 AM Re: Internalizing Satanistic Philosophy: The Bible [Re: MelanosDivinity]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: MelanosDivinity

I have always believed that just reading a book isn't enough
one must comprehend what he is reading.


TSB can be deceptively simple.

To me, one of the most important quotes in the book is:

 Originally Posted By: ASLV
Satanism demands study, not worship!

That quote is an invitation\invocation to stop taking things at face value and to begin to doubt.

To doubt is to begin seeking truth and to seek truth is to acquire knowledge.

The acquisition of knowledge is taboo in the Abrahamic religions, consult Adam and Eve and consult the djinn who were all tempted into knowing things beyond the word of god (by who?) \:\)

Consider these other quotes from the Book of Lucifer in TSB:

 Originally Posted By: ASLV
It is only doubt which will bring mental emancipation. Without the wonderful element of doubt the doorway through which truth passes would be tightly shut..


 Originally Posted By: ASLV
When one doubt is followed by another, the bubble (of falsehood), grown large from long accumulated fallacies, threatens to burst.


You would not be here were it not for your doubt.

How far you can carry that is up to you.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#35483 - 02/11/10 01:58 PM Decompression chamber [Re: MelanosDivinity]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3142
The philosophy on itself is easy enough to understand, if the person is willingly and has the right mindset to understand, learn and grow.

It should be mentioned that the part of understanding is only a beginning. To recognize oneself is another part. And then if both factors are being met up with the labeling is yet another part.
It is easy to CLAIM all 3 factors are being achieved/done/have happened, yet most self-proclaimed persons fail hardly and tend to fall back on illogical thinking.

The understanding should make the practitioner able to know what he is talking about, the recognization makes it more easy to state the knowledge you acuired and to enforce these statements. To label oneself is to acknowledge the fact you understand and recognize yourself trough the understanding and recognization.
I like to stress out that if someone starts to label himself (especially with Satanism) he/she should be able to state their choice/belief, to know what they state and to state what they know.

To have an open-mind is a good thing, but it is best with the need for evidence. Evenso, I would say that an open-mind should be accompanied with the standard of "asking evidence/sources" (and thinking critically about these sources). To doubt is a bad word, to question is more wise.


Edited by Dimitri (02/11/10 02:08 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#35484 - 02/11/10 04:00 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Dimitri]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3898
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

The philosophy on itself is easy enough to understand


The thing is, even though TSB is very short and written in plain English, the fact remains that most people (at least the ones that discuss it here and other cyber 'places') seem to miss the mark by a mile. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, and most just end up trying to make sense of it in the context of their own (usually heavily RHP) belief system. A real understanding never comes out of this.

Satanism, as it is, is completely alien to most minds. This is a bridge too far for most.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#35486 - 02/11/10 04:11 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Dan_Dread]
Noctuary Offline
pledge


Registered: 02/01/10
Posts: 92
I think what happens to new people who are of a certain mind frame is this...
They mistake this idea:

TSB is about Satanism. Is it NOT Satanism. We are the living embodiment of Satanic ideas..not the xerox machines of some book.
_________________________
Devils speak of the way in which she'll manifest

Top
#35489 - 02/11/10 04:52 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Dimitri]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
To doubt is a bad word, to question is more wise.


And what is it, precisely, that leads one to question?
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#35490 - 02/11/10 06:02 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Dan_Dread]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Whats so hard to understand about this book:

The ontological basis of Satanism is material/real.

All moral codes/dogmas which are underpinned or conform to mystical religious systems are invalid and therefore will not compel the Satanist to act and think according to them.

The species is regulated by Darwinian evolution.

Might is right - the strong will overcome and rule the weak as a result. This is the real basis of human intersubjectivity and interrelation. Stratification as essential reality, as real basis of a political practice.

Creative destruction as the prime mover of human history.

The individual who identifies him or herself as a Satanist will identify with the symbol of Satan. He or she will recognse that he or she is an animal, a beast and will revel and indulge his or her carnal self without guilt feelings.

Indulgence and action will be tempered by an understanding of responsibility, quality and rational self interest.

I am the centre of my world and am an I-theist and will legitimate my world myself. I am however aware of other Gods and may need to work and megotiate with others.

Satanism is not a noun, it is an adjective and GM and LM are tools which I can use to win.

I am what I do and am out to win in the real world.

Top
#35491 - 02/11/10 07:50 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: ]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3898
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Yes yes, anybody can attempt to follow any set of principles they wish, but you will always fail unless acting and being that way is congruent with your core nature.

We are all wired differently, and the regardless if you believe our brain-wiring is inborn or sculpted by the world at an early age, the type of person that is wired for this shit doesn't come along every day.

There are Satanists and there are followers of Satanism.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#35493 - 02/11/10 08:15 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Dan_Dread]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Yes yes, anybody can attempt to follow any set of principles they wish, but you will always fail unless acting and being that way is congruent with your core nature.

There are Satanists and there are followers of Satanism.


Absolutely. This is why we have SATANISTS and EX-SATANISTS. You can read a book or be told what's in it and you can try your damnedest to be that thing you might admire from the story... Batman, Superman, The Green Lantern, or even Jesus... but as Dan said, "unless acting and being that way is congruent with your core nature," the bast you can ever hope to be is a poor imitation. You might fool a lot of internet geeks or high school girls looking for "bad boy thrills," but you just can't fool yourself in the mirror.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#35494 - 02/11/10 09:47 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Jake999]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
While I understand that labels are a fact of life, I use them sparingly. Why? Because labels are a shortcut to thinking. Disagree with someone? Call them a liberal or conservative, middle-of-the-road or radical, anything but a human being with something to say.

That said, I hope I never dismiss someone with a term such as “newbie”. Aren’t we all newbies at some time in our lives? If you have a problem with something someone said, by all means say your thing. But using cheap shots like newbie does nothing to advance one’s argument.

The Satanic Bible is deep or not deep, depending on how one looks at it. I’ve seen it both ways, and I don’t think admitting that makes me any less a Satanist than I would otherwise be. Satanism is about following one’s own path, forming one’s own conclusions. It is, by its very nature, individualistic. Why, then, do so many Satanists demand a one-size-fits-all approach?

Variety is the spice of life.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#35498 - 02/11/10 11:06 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: William Wright]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
I don't know where you think I've called anyone a newbie here... so I suppose you must be speaking to what someone else said. Obviously, you haven't paid much attention to what I've written here or elsewhere in other topics.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#35499 - 02/11/10 11:09 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: William Wright]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



One last post from me.

It is alien for most people I think.

I think many people attempt to soften its freezing cold hard edges and angles with systems of thinking or soma designed to make people feel safe around others and in their homes and workplaces.

Reading The Book of Satan and reflecting on it and agreeing with the unvarnished reality of it will determine whether you are a Satanist or not I think.

It is a harsh and brutal philosophy. It is elitist and completely self – centred and hedonistic and it merits and celebrates winners and leaves losers and the useless by the roadside.

It is genuinely dark and so cold Dan and the average Joe would be frankly frightened by the reality of it I think.

Not many people can look at cold hard razor sharp reality and agree with it or live it.

The trapezoid is so perfect for it.

How many people are actually cut out for a philosophy like that?

Wolves lurk around and they prey on those who are not of their kind.

Have a good weekend.

Top
#35500 - 02/11/10 11:24 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: ]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3898
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

It is genuinely dark and so cold Dan and the average Joe would be frankly frightened by the reality of it I think.

Trust me when I tell you this;I have seen things that would make your blood run cold. I have been to the edge of the abyss and back again.

But you have hit the nail on the head here. Reality is a very hard and cold place. It takes courage and a certain type of resolve to not only internalize this fact, but embrace it.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#35505 - 02/12/10 01:27 AM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: ]
MelanosDivinity Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/08/10
Posts: 29
Loc: Port Gibson, Mississippi
When you say "agreeing" I cannot help but get this feeling that you are implying "worship" rather than study. To qoute, "Satanism must be studied, not worshiped." And are you also implying that one must agree with ALL of what is written in the book of satan or just a small amount of the material? Because if you are saying that one must agree with ALL that is written in the Bible then it seems as if that does not leave much if any room for individual interpretation, through internalizing the material, then revising it to shape one's own philosophical views and/or beliefs. And I thought that 'Satanism' condones individuality. Just my thoughts.

Also, you use the word "Satanism" as if you are trying to portray this word as some sort of label. To me, one should not have a need to label himself as a satanist, the philosophy shouldn't be something that he soley acquires through reading from the book, but it a natural facet of his unique nature.

To me, Satanism isn't adopted, it is birthed from within his being, it is an integral part of who he is.


Best Regards,


Denmark


Edited by MelanosDivinity (02/12/10 01:28 AM)
_________________________
Take your OWN pen, draw your OWN path.-denmark

Top
#35530 - 02/12/10 08:58 AM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: MelanosDivinity]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
Jake, sorry about that. I was referring to Nemesis' post. I will be more careful about that in the future.

A quick side note: Jake, you were in my dream last night. Swear to god! You were a bartender, and you were less than thrilled with me because I was being a cheapskate. Then I decided to start tipping you well, and that livened you up. You make one hell of a screwdriver.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#35532 - 02/12/10 09:22 AM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: William Wright]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Great... I always wanted to be someplace where I got to hang around with drunks for tips. I can honestly say I haven't been in a bar since October 27th 2007 or had a drink since then. Shared a birthday drink with my best girl while we were in Cleveland. Not my thing, really.

After my brother was killed by a drunk driver, I pretty much lost my taste for it. Today, I MIGHT have a beer or a glass of white wine if I really enjoy the company I'm with AND I have no access to a car.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#35535 - 02/12/10 10:02 AM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Fnord]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3142
To question implies the search for stated facts which empowers statements. It is to search/observe "beyond" face-value. To research facts/actions which looked "logical" or normal on first sight.

Questioning means staying critical and open-minded at the same time. To doubt means a person is taking so-called contradicting "facts" for granted and is stuck between them, making it impossible to come to a conclusion. The questioning means taking a critical position against all information given.


Edited by Dimitri (02/12/10 10:03 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#35538 - 02/12/10 10:53 AM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Dimitri]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
To doubt means a person is taking so-called contradicting "facts" for granted and is stuck between them, making it impossible to come to a conclusion.


Doubt, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, is simply: "to be uncertain about something; to be undecided in opinion or belief."

To my mind, doubt leads to questioning and questioning leads to critical thinking.

Doubt is not an opposed position to questioning.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#35543 - 02/12/10 12:03 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Fnord]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3142
Please reread the part you came to quote, it should be clear enough when the braincells are being used.

Lets make it more easy; how does someone become undecided/doubtfull in opinion or belief? --> by taking contradicting "facts" for granted.
The point is that facts cannot be contradictory, if they do so then there is
a) a mechanism which should link them together (only in science, barely happens when it comes to belief or ideology)
b) the wrong questions being asked
c) wrong interpretations
d) too much of an "open mind" without consideration of the "information" you let in.

Points b,c,d are indications of problems understanding this .
Simple isn't it?

Questioning is easy, asking the right questions is a bit harder.


Edited by Dimitri (02/12/10 12:06 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#35544 - 02/12/10 12:17 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Dimitri]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
Nice story, but in addition to misusing the word "doubt" you're also misusing the word "fact" (also, the notion of taking something for granted, but that's neither here nor there).

Why don't you tell me why you said:
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
To doubt is a bad word, to question is more wise.


Why is doubt a bad word? Perhaps I'm missing something. Perhaps LaVey should have used the word 'question' to describe 'doubt' in his TSB in your mind, yes?

Also, I can do without the snide tone. It doesn't help your argument and it doesn't make you appear to have superior points, especially since you've decided it worthwhile to argue the semantics of word meanings when a reference (the dictionary) is readily available to all who seek it.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#35547 - 02/12/10 01:03 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Fnord]
delusion Offline
pledge


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 77
Loc: hawaii
Spinning the wheels much?

 Quote:
Also, I can do without the snide tone.


I'd be willing to bet that at least 60% of the posts here are absolutely ripe with snide tones. I've never seen it done any differently in the "satanic community" be it this board or any other.
Whether it is worth it to you to take ANY of the opinions on this board seriously is the real question.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled pointless debate...

Top
#35550 - 02/12/10 01:15 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: delusion]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
Yeah it's par for the course.

That being said, someone who's using that critical thinking video as a means of supporting their argument should be above making the mistakes referenced in the video. Just sayin'.

There are some great opinions on this board... none of which I take as fact. I wouldn't be here unless I found some value in being here.

As for the 'debate', I'm done with it.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#35562 - 02/12/10 03:15 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Fnord]
Noctuary Offline
pledge


Registered: 02/01/10
Posts: 92
I can't believe we are debating the ideas of 'doubt' and 'question'

questioning is imperative in your day to day life. Doubt is one reason (amongst a number of other ones) that lead to a question. No one questions with the facts unless they are just liking to hear their own voice or have no need for an answer.
_________________________
Devils speak of the way in which she'll manifest

Top
#37257 - 04/02/10 02:55 AM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Noctuary]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
It might be a good idea to fetch a sandwich and a glass of wine before continuing; this post is a bit lengthy.



Dan_Dread:

 Quote:
Yes yes, anybody can attempt to follow any set of principles they wish, but you will always fail unless acting and being that way is congruent with your core nature.

Is it not possible that "being and acting that way" can be sharpened by conscious action and human volition to a point equaling or surpassing a person who is a 'native Satanist' (if you will) but not as intellectually or practically equipped to make use of it? Do you have reasons for answering in the negative?

I have never taken literally the statement that Satanists are born and not made. That has never been demonstrated to me in any concrete way, and as far as I’m concerned is as metaphorical as the role and existence of Satan himself. Some Satanists are born, and some are made. It is a myth, unsupported by psychology or cognitive science, that a person cannot radically change the way he or she thinks and lives. Indeed, the remaking of oneself as an Übermensch, I would argue, is fundamental to Nietzschean thought concerning human life after the death of God, and thence to its accented element within Satanism. The Nietzsche scholar Robert Pippin discusses this in his article, "Love and death in Nietzsche," which I highly recommend. A person who has lived first as complacent prey can, with the seizing of his or her own destiny, become the most acute predator.


 Quote:
There are Satanists and there are followers of Satanism.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits."




Maw, Nemesis, and Noctuary have each contributed what I believe are the most valuable points in this thread.



MawhrinSkel:

 Quote:
When you're finished, there's no call to pretend your experience of the book was anything other than what it really was. Your experience is yours. The worst thing you could do afterwards would be to fake a response. If you want to live inside your own skin, accept your reading of the book and move from there.

Well said. It is all the more astonishing from the pithy simplicity and naked truth of your words that there are people, even normally careful readers, who seem completely unable to do this. Most theists notwithstanding, I am always baffled when a Satanist responds to open-ended skepticism with bitterly defensive (and often shallow) retorts when the object under scrutiny is The Satanic Bible. Demolishing sloppy assertions is one thing—I strongly encourage it—but reproaching offhandedly the mere existence of uncertainty, doubt, or rejection of some aspect of the book is the product of an imbecile. To such people, it's as if reading the book should, must, excite one to such ecstasy at the realization of long-held agreement with its principles that the declaration "I am a Satanist!" will inexorably soon follow, or if not, proves that the individual in question is a mindless sheep by tautology. In addition to being slipshod reasoning, this is simply not commensurate with reality, and even if it were, mere congruence with the points of Satanic philosophy bears no more import for their truth or falsehood than does the expressed belief of a 12th-century bishop (Robert Grosseteste) that the universe began with a single point. Grosseteste had only conjectural and scriptural reasons for arguing as he did, and simply had the good luck to be proven correct on entirely different grounds. Even if a belief system is accurate to the way the world functions, its status as an untested belief system remains, and that is its trap, the ultimate solipsistic conflation of preference with rational evidence. I will return to this point somewhat more pointedly in my response to Nemesis.


 Quote:
I know plenty of people who read it and thought "This is cool, but it isn't really me." This is fine. Some people find different sections senseless, and wonder if they can leave those out. In many cases, these revisions are made from an unenlightened point of view.

Agreed in full. My only postscript is a suggestion, and I'm not accusing you of having done this by any means, that individuals not presume from the outset that someone's disagreement or omission is necessarily due to a lack of enlightenment. Consider for example that the majority of space in The Satanic Bible, and the whole of it in The Satanic Rituals, is devoted specifically to ritual practices, a facet of Satanism in which not every Satanist chooses to engage. If they are no less Satanic for excluding something which occupies ~84% (1.67/2) of two primary books at the heart of Satanism, then doing so with something of less importance hardly strikes me as an issue. Choosing to jettison a central tenet which defines Satanism, such as attempting in vain to fuse it with one or another kind of theism, is manifestly absurd, but the same is true of those who lash out at others' disagreement with Satanic minutiae simply for doing so. Even Anton LaVey knowingly violated one of the major proscriptions of his own philosophy—theft—with the plagiarism of passages from Might is Right without attribution.

"Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved."



Nemesis:

 Quote:
Reading this book should feel like the gears (is that what they're called?) of a lock clicking into place. There doesn't have to be an epiphany, not even a mild one, for the book to be valid to you. I didn't have a POW! either, but I didn't expect to. Never bring any expectations into the reading of a book, or anything else for that matter. Take your experiences for what they are, not for what you THINK they should be.

Sound advice indeed, and advice in desperate need of application. I emphasize your second sentence especially, having encountered ad nauseam the implicit and explicit belief that the opposite is true. I had no such "POW!" moment either. My first reading of The Satanic Bible was with unhurried seriousness, foregoing the tendency toward any conclusions until I had finished the entire book, and my treatment of it since has been very much the same.


 Quote:
Aside from the rituals, TSB is all of, what? Thirty pages (if that)? There really isn't that much to glean from it if you've been living it all of your life. LaVey didn't speak in couched terms either, so how much left is there to over analyze? I think I've read it twice, and I don't feel the need to keep poring over particular chapters or sections. That starts to smack of dogma, in trying to 'absorb' the tenets of a belief system or philosophy because I just couldn't wrap my head around the ideas presented the first time I read the book.

I state the following in as sincere and complimentary a way as possible: thank you for stating the obvious. Your last statement, however, is slightly problematic. Aversion to dogmatism could not be more reasonable, but stopping to reexamine a passage, section, or even the book itself does not oblige you to kowtow or swoon over what is, as you say, really a straightforward book. I think your point, unless I'm mistaken, is oriented more toward the spirit in which one returns to The Satanic Bible than anything. The book, in other words, only becomes an inviolable tablet of dogma when a person begins to read it as always having a 'deeper' meaning which must be rooted out. If so, your argument is well-taken. If not, feel free to explain further if you wish.

I mention that because my profession and field of study draw their strength from the critical reading and rereading of sources with an exceedingly careful eye for content, structure, and meaning. I could never embrace a text, no matter how strongly my intuition might accord with its thesis and arguments, without the employment of precise, logical, methodical, self-critiquing and above all external reflection on the veracity of its claims. Nor, for that matter, could I respect anyone whose ultimate agreement with Satanism came into being without these elements; such people are no better than their enemies. This is especially necessary with The Satanic Bible, wherein virtually none of the claims made are supported by rigorous argument of any kind. As an academic grandfather of mine once said, "Give me eight axioms and I can prove anything to you." One-third of the book's entire length is devoted to 'Satanized' 16th-century gibberish, which, while achieving the end of spitting in the eyes of paranoid Christians and witless New Agers, contributes little of real significance to advancing Satanic philosophy. What content remains beyond that, the descriptive summary of Satanic ritual, lists of infernal names, and [regularly mistaken] historical information—what in other words constitutes the delineation of Satanic philosophy qua philosophy—is contained only in a handful of passages and collections of aphorisms, one of which, as I have already said, plagiarizes the writing of someone else. The book is simply not an extraordinarily impressive piece of work, regardless of whether or not its claims are philosophically justifiable.

It is for these reasons and others that I view The Satanic Bible solely as a broad catechism and manifesto, and I have never found compelling reasons to believe that it could be otherwise. LaVey's contribution was to bring together a particular constellation of ideas under the name Satanism, the ideas themselves (including the word 'Satanism' and a metaphorical Satan representing the indulgent side of life) having all been derived from earlier individuals who by and large, in my strong opinion, had made the case for their conclusions in a far more thorough and meticulous way than LaVey himself ever did. Even he acknowledged it when he said that Satanism is "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added." In this sense I might be called a Satanic structuralist, if I might borrow a term from the philosophy of mathematics, since it is from the structure of Satanism, given cohesion by The Satanic Bible, that it acquires its definition and purpose as a philosophy of life.


 Quote:
In short, The Satanic Bible is just not that 'deep', and it sounds as if these newbies are trying to read too much into it.

It isn't just the newbies. Encountering Satanists who seem intent on reading the deepest possible levels of nuance and profundity into every word, at least in my experience, has not been as rare an occurrence as I would like it to be.



Noctuary:

 Quote:
TSB is about Satanism. Is it NOT Satanism. We are the living embodiment of Satanic ideas..not the xerox machines of some book.

All that I have said in this post is an elaboration and extension of your maxim.


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37258 - 04/02/10 03:31 AM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Zophos]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3142
 Quote:
I have never taken literally the statement that Satanists are born and not made. That has never been demonstrated to me in any concrete way, and as far as I’m concerned is as metaphorical as the role and existence of Satan himself. Some Satanists are born, and some are made. It is a myth, unsupported by psychology or cognitive science, that a person cannot radically change the way he or she thinks and lives.

The plain fact it cannot be demonstrated is just because the philosophy of Satanism being a personal one and which uses personal experiences.
To be born a Satanist actually means being born in a place and being raised in a community wherein the general ideas of Satanism are not frowned upon (under the condition there is no relation with the term itself). To be born a Satanist means being born as a normal person, acting "naturally" on pulses from your envirronement. To be born with the proper mindset to become a Satanist (or at least have the virtues of one) is doubtfull, yet possible.

I can only relate to myself (by personal experience) a person CAN change his ways radically when it comes to religious views.
I, for one, was high up in the pagan belief it was untill I read the SB I started to change my ways and actually began getting more related to what I truly was: a Satanist.
You can take it or leave it, I cannot provide the evidence for this change and I bet you know a way to counter it. I might battle that statement, but I only have the experience which you will disregard anyway.


 Quote:
Well said. It is all the more astonishing from the pithy simplicity and naked truth of your words that there are people, even normally careful readers, who seem completely unable to do this. Most theists notwithstanding, I am always baffled when a Satanist responds to open-ended skepticism with bitterly defensive (and often shallow) retorts when the object under scrutiny is The Satanic Bible. Demolishing sloppy assertions is one thing—I strongly encourage it—but reproaching offhandedly the mere existence of uncertainty, doubt, or rejection of some aspect of the book is the product of an imbecile. To such people, it's as if reading the book should, must, excite one to such ecstasy at the realization of long-held agreement with its principles that the declaration "I am a Satanist!" will inexorably soon follow, or if not, proves that the individual in question is a mindless sheep by tautology.

Is it? Experiencing is a huge factor. The hands-off approach can be a result of a continuos flow of ignorant people who only read without the thinking. The defensive position can also be a result of not being able to explain an experience.

I can tell about the fun of doing investigation on the "biodiversity" of maritime species and what joy it might bring if you start finding seastars, brittlestars, different kind of fish,.. . But somehow the emotion and experience cannot be shared (unless the other person(s) did the same thing). This might result in very defensive positions and a seemingly lack of insight or misplaced arrogance/egoism.

The book on itself requiers the reader to experience and think. I can easily see ASL's intentions when he wrote his books, I can also disagree with some of his views, and I can see where his ideas might have come from. In the end, all that matters is on a personal level and what you make of it.

 Quote:
Even Anton LaVey knowingly violated one of the major proscriptions of his own philosophy—theft—with the plagiarism of passages from Might is Right without attribution.

Actually.. that can be countered with the argument he wrote that copying a person of imitating someone (how bad it even is) can be considered as flattery.
You can disagree with that statement but in his views it can make perfectly sense.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#37316 - 04/02/10 10:06 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Dimitri]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
 Quote:
The plain fact it cannot be demonstrated is just because the philosophy of Satanism being a personal one and which uses personal experiences.

Satanism also relies on the employment of reason and evidential criteria, which through science provides us with knowledge about things which we can't necessarily perceive. If I were talking merely about an issue of personal experience, I wouldn't have said anything at all.

My issue is with Satanists who proudly assert a type of nativism with regard to Satanism itself, arguing that the personality structure of a Satanist (usually prefixed with the word "true" or "real") is innate within some people and not others. More to the point, most of them go on to say that those who "don't got it" never will. Not one has been able to show that this is the case. If there were corroborating scientific studies from developmental or personality psychology to accompany the claim, I would more than happily concede. All of the studies I have seen, however, show a distinct combination of genetics and environmental factors as the arbiters of personality, and these persist as such throughout a person's life.

People change, and with sufficient strength of will can change to quite an extraordinary degree. There are Satanists for example who were at one time fully committed and indoctrinated Christians—I am one of them. Either I made a series of conscious decisions which drastically altered my most basic approaches to thought itself, or else my tendency toward fierce questioning and resistance to external control was innate. The former is obviously true by virtue of the fact that I was at one time a practicing Christian and now am a resolute Satanist, while the latter is not. Prior to my leaving Christianity, I was very much a passive, slavish teenager developing into a passive, slavish adult, and very little of that actually had to do with my religion. Skepticism, philosophical investigation, and scientific inquiry came only much later. Thus if my Satanic tendencies existed prior to its manifestation, which does not appear to be the case prima facie, there are absolutely no epistemological criteria by which we could adduce the fact. The claim that Satanists are born and not made, therefore, lacks support from either science or logic, being demonstrably against the findings of one and impossible to show at an individual level through the other. Better simply to allow the actions of particular Satanists to speak for themselves.


 Quote:
To be born a Satanist actually means being born in a place and being raised in a community wherein the general ideas of Satanism are not frowned upon (under the condition there is no relation with the term itself).

Clearly you have failed to realize that the very origin of Satanism and its antecedent philosophies via Nietzsche, Rand, Mencken, London, Crowley, Redbeard, and others came to exist precisely because their originators did not live in a time or place that condoned them. Indeed, it might even be argued that many of the ideas advocated by these people will never by their very nature and definition receive wide acceptance. Like Satan, they rebelled against what they saw as the hypocrisy and falsehood of then-dominant cultural values, asserting the primacy of responsible human independence and the exertion of will toward genuine excellence. Even since the initial cohesion of Satanism's philosophical structure in The Satanic Bible, there have been droves of people who have stepped through its gates from a prior involvement with Christianity, Wicca, and other religions.


 Quote:
To be born a Satanist means being born as a normal person, acting "naturally" on pulses from your envirronement. To be born with the proper mindset to become a Satanist (or at least have the virtues of one) is doubtfull, yet possible.

Please define a "normal person," and give criteria by which we can know whether or not a child has been born with the "proper mindset to become a Satanist." A child of three or even ten is incapable of thinking at the abstract level required to make a well-informed decision about whether or not he or she is a Satanist, and by the time this faculty has come into being, it is impossible for us or even the individual in question to know whether that decision is a product of a particular innate genetic arrangement or one of experience. Both, again, appear to contribute significantly, although to what degree remains a matter of scientific question. Excluding this, Satanists are different, often extremely different, people. What list of characteristics can be given to determine that a person has the "proper mindset"? A tendency to question proves nothing, since cases can be furnished in which strict atheists ultimately become theists (the case of Anthony Flew immediately comes to mind), and a ferocity of will is equally superficial, since few would doubt that an idiot like Al Sharpton or George W. Bush possesses that. The relationship between a human mind and a specific philosophical model is far too complex to be placed squarely in nativist or empiricist categories.


 Quote:
You can take it or leave it, I cannot provide the evidence for this change and I bet you know a way to counter it.

Generalizing the radical change you describe was precisely what I used as my basis for arguing that Satanists can in fact be made. Having given my reasoning at length, why would I counter it?


 Quote:
Is it? Experiencing is a huge factor. The hands-off approach can be a result of a continuos flow of ignorant people who only read without the thinking. The defensive position can also be a result of not being able to explain an experience.

In what way is my argument "hands-off"? If anything, the defensiveness of some Satanists marginalizes the role of experience by the very nature of its nativist claim. A "true" Satanist, being born with a disposition toward the behavioral traits of Satanism, will become one (whether merely in action or both name and action) by that fact alone rather than by a specific set of experiences. Otherwise nativism itself dissolves, since it is due in significant part to the role of experience that one becomes a Satanist. I have shown that the limits of our own experience don't permit us to say whether or not an individual Satanist was "born" or "made," and that the epistemological criteria for evaluating Satanic innateness or lack thereof do not exist. Put simply, you and I agree on this matter, not disagree.


 Quote:
The book on itself requiers the reader to experience and think. I can easily see ASL's intentions when he wrote his books, I can also disagree with some of his views, and I can see where his ideas might have come from. In the end, all that matters is on a personal level and what you make of it.

Agreed, although I should specify that "what you make of it" does come with certain stipulations and limits with regard to the definition of Satanism. As I said in my earlier post, there are certain fundamental ideas which are incompatible with what Satanism is—a professed Satanist who believes in any god is not a Satanist at all. I'm merely stressing that point.


 Quote:
Actually.. that can be countered with the argument he wrote that copying a person of imitating someone (how bad it even is) can be considered as flattery.

Wrong. To quote Jim Carrey's spin on that adage, "Imitation is the sincerest form of plagiarism." That a Baptist pastor of all people has brought forth this case with greater intellectual honesty than you have is fairly amusing.

In LaVey’s authorized biography, [Blanche] Barton says that LaVey “attacks most savagely those who ride on his coattails, or who steal his ideas, all the while pretending at originality or innovation—with, at best, begrudging acknowledgement of their inspiration’s very existence.” Barton, The Secret Life of a Satanist, 222. LaVey’s hypocrisy here speaks for itself. Similarly, Barton speaks of those who obviously drew from LaVey’s philosophy, but “routinely give not so much credit as a notation in their bibliography.” Ibid., 14. However, most of LaVey’s books, including The Satanic Bible, don’t even have a bibliography. (Source, section 3.5.2 and footnote 153)

Only much later, in his preface to the 1996 edition of Might is Right, did LaVey admit in print to having stolen material from Ragnar Redbeard, although even there he fails to distinguish it as such explicitly. LaVey's hypocrisy in this regard is a matter of fact.

Satanism is a philosophy of the ego. Taking someone else's ideas without due credit and representing them as your own is a paramount example of psychic vampirism. I don't care who does it or what reasons they offer for it; theft is theft, pure and simple. I have dealt with a plagiarist who tried to steal my research without properly crediting me for having done it, and I assure you that the experience is anything but flattering.


 Quote:
You can disagree with that statement but in his views it can make perfectly sense.

I repeat: "Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved." I challenge you to find any reconciliation between that statement and theft. Plagiarism is incompatible with Satanism.


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37329 - 04/03/10 04:41 AM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Zophos]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Look, apparently you can debate and argue your way out of a paper bag. But that doesn't change how many of us feel.

If you had read many other older threads, you will see that this has been debated, explained, claified, and examples given.

I find it amusing that you have gone to such lengths to try to convince people here that Satanists are made and not born that way. Almost like you are trying to prove it to yourself.

Age is not a factor in wheather a person is a Satanist or not. It has been explained previously and examples were given. These ranging from personal experiences to the fact that at one point back in the day we had a 13 year well spoken mod here. Just because it took you so long to decompress yourself and come to find Satanism doesn't mean that is the route everyone takes.

What about the ritual chamber in regards to Dark Gods and personal creative drama as a motivating factor. Why do you think that using them in rituals doesn't make you a Satanist, esp. considering the space given to rites in the Satanic Bible or Satanic Rituals? Just because you can see no use in rites doesn't mean that no one else can either.

Jim Carrey is an asshole. People who can quote him are more than questionable already in my mind. The only thing he did well was hook up with Jenny Macarthy.

So now you want to make more action to discredit what LaVey wrote. Big Fucking Deal, most people ala most Satanist understand that the man combined and brought forth a book that summed up a personal path of philosophy that was previously not in any one book. Since you feel such a book is full of hypocrisy, and plagiarism don't fucking read it.

It sounds like you have sour grapes against a man who organized something new, something you have failed to do in whatever research you claim you did.

As for that statement you posted in red, are you dense? Most sheep, cry out to relieved of their brains, money, and lives. They disguard this world and pray for the next where they can lay at the feet of J.Christ and company. Every day old and young are fleeced by churches, ministers, and priest who tell them to give up onto the lord. They urge them to give of their cash, their, homes, and bodies to satisfy the carnal urging of a church and ministry that tells them everything they feel is a sin.

Just because you can't see outside the box doesn't mean that the end of everything.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#37338 - 04/03/10 10:34 AM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Morgan]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
Morgan:

You have managed so completely to misunderstand and by extension to misrepresent my arguments that, in order to point it out to you and anyone else who reads this thread, I have quoted each sentence or passage containing such misrepresentation in orange. Either read my posts more carefully, citing exactly where I say the things you claim I do, or don't bother wasting my time and yours by responding to them.


 Quote:
Look, apparently you can debate and argue your way out of a paper bag. But that doesn't change how many of us feel.

In turn, that doesn't make the way you feel any more relevant to me or this discussion. I am concerned with logical argument, not personal feelings.


 Quote:
If you had read many other older threads, you will see that this has been debated, explained, claified, and examples given.

Your presumption that I haven't already is mistaken. If the "Born a Satanist" thread hadn't been locked, I would have responded to it there and left a link to it here. The issue came up here as a direct consequence of my response to Dan_Dread, who in both threads has advocated the nativist position. I politely asked him, out of curiosity and interest in what he has to say, to provide demonstrable evidence for his claim. I have seen conjectural arguments provided elsewhere, certainly, but not, as I will explain later, evidential reasons behind them. That Satanists are born and not made is a type of claim known as a universal affirmative, and to be true requires that criteria be established, and demonstration based on them given, which has not been done. Both science and logic are structured in exactly this way, including the need for ongoing inquiry into constructs of dominant belief. If you wish to ignore that fact by making indefensible faith statements, be my guest.


 Quote:
I find it amusing that you have gone to such lengths to try to convince people here that Satanists are made and not born that way. Almost like you are trying to prove it to yourself.

And I find it amusing that you equate length (read: ongoing discussion) with insecurity. That might be true of men and their genitals, but it has no bearing here. Find for me even one passage where I state that Satanists are invariably made and not born. I quote: "Some Satanists are born, and some are made." It can't be stated any more plainly than that, and I'm not going to try.


 Quote:
Age is not a factor in wheather a person is a Satanist or not. It has been explained previously and examples were given. These ranging from personal experiences to the fact that at one point back in the day we had a 13 year well spoken mod here.

Have you even read "A Field Guide to Critical Thinking" in the Satanism 101 section, or watched the video on it in the Video Discussion Forum? Arguments from personal experience, whether the given experience itself occurred or not, do not in any way qualify as evidence for a rational claim, leastwise for a universal affirmative. Unless you're prepared to accept the personal experiences of the religious as somehow legitimating their beliefs too, your personal experience brings you no closer to evidential justification than theirs, and the sooner you realize it the better. That this forum had a 13-year-old moderator at one point is inconsequential, since I never said that Satanists could not have the tendency to be so from an early age. Indeed, I said exactly the opposite.


 Quote:
Just because it took you so long to decompress yourself and come to find Satanism doesn't mean that is the route everyone takes.

Once again, where did I say otherwise? Find one passage and show it to me. What I said was that some Satanists are inclined to mesh with Satanic philosophy from an early age or possibly birth, and some come to espouse it through a radical change from their former ways of thinking and living, whatever those might have been. There is no consensus, even a vague one, on the extent of genetic innateness of personality even in the scientific community, so how and why you feel that you are uniquely qualified to tell us is a justification I would love to hear.


 Quote:
What about the ritual chamber in regards to Dark Gods and personal creative drama as a motivating factor. Why do you think that using them in rituals doesn't make you a Satanist, esp. considering the space given to rites in the Satanic Bible or Satanic Rituals? Just because you can see no use in rites doesn't mean that no one else can either.

What the hell are you talking about? I never said anything even remotely similar to that. I perform rituals myself on a nigh-weekly basis, and simply remarked that not all Satanists do or see reason to. My skepticism that you even grasped what I said is increasing at a geometric rate.


 Quote:
Jim Carrey is an asshole.

Agreed.


 Quote:
People who can quote him are more than questionable already in my mind.

Quoting a fact stated by an idiot in order to lighten the mood is exactly that. He deflated the stupidity of a piece of folk wisdom in a way that I found humorous. Obviously you do not. Move on.


 Quote:
So now you want to make more action to discredit what LaVey wrote.

I want you to reread those words, especially in light of what I have said so far, until you internalize the absurdity of your statement. I, a Satanist who in no uncertain terms has gone on record acknowledging the cohesive structure provided by The Satanic Bible as the central bastion which defined what Satanism is, am attempting in the same post to completely discredit its author without any desire whatever to reject the Satanism of which I acknowledge him as the founder. Unbelievable.


 Quote:
Big Fucking Deal, most people ala most Satanist understand that the man combined and brought forth a book that summed up a personal path of philosophy that was previously not in any one book.

I dare you to use that rationale with a doctoral dissertation that contains a stolen paragraph, or a work of fiction that plagiarizes a famous author; your credibility and career will evaporate in an instant. Plagiarism is a "Big Fucking Deal." My own revulsion of it comes from working in an academic position, where from time to time it does occur at a professional level. I am an unrelenting supporter of intellectual property rights, and I will defend them without mercy no matter who violates them, friend or foe. If you believe for even a second that I am going to excuse it selectively or operate on a double standard merely because the plagiarist in this case is an individual whose philosophy I live, you are sadly mistaken. And since you have totally ignored Anton LaVey's own words on the matter, I will repeat them.

In LaVey’s authorized biography, [Blanche] Barton says that LaVey “attacks most savagely those who ride on his coattails, or who steal his ideas, all the while pretending at originality or innovation—with, at best, begrudging acknowledgement of their inspiration’s very existence.” Barton, The Secret Life of a Satanist, 222. LaVey’s hypocrisy here speaks for itself. Similarly, Barton speaks of those who obviously drew from LaVey’s philosophy, but “routinely give not so much credit as a notation in their bibliography.” Ibid., 14. However, most of LaVey’s books, including The Satanic Bible, don’t even have a bibliography. (Source, section 3.5.2 and footnote 153)

The fact, and it is a fact, that Anton LaVey plagiarized Ragnar Redbeard in no way discredits him outright or diminishes the truth or falsehood of any aspect of his philosophy. Again, the brute fact that a Baptist pastor has been more intellectually honest on this matter than you or Dimitri is both puzzling and comical. Even if LaVey had been a rapist, serial killer, and pedophile—even if at some point in his life he had converted to Christianity—that would still not change the degree of validity of his philosophy, but nor does it mean that we should slavishly downplay reality in order to hold a view of The Satanic Bible which is blatantly false. I admire and practice Satanic philosophy daily, but the fact remains that Anton LaVey was a human being capable of error and occasional stupidity, just like the rest of us. Had he taken ten seconds to include a footnote crediting Ragnar Redbeard for his contribution, all would be well, but he didn't. Stop offering meaningless attempts at justification and accept it.


 Quote:
Since you feel such a book is full of hypocrisy, and plagiarism don't fucking read it.

I never said that the book is "full" of anything. The incidence of plagiarism is thankfully small, which changes nothing in principle but does keep LaVey free from the accusation that he simply cobbled together plagiarized bits of material to produce The Satanic Bible and had no originality of his own.

Moreover, I don't "feel" that the book contains plagiarism. That, as I have already said clearly, is a matter of fact, and there is no way around it. John Smulo's explanation and side-by-side comparison of LaVey's words with Redbeard's shows it beyond question. If you disagree, please tell me then, Morgan, what is it when a man knowingly steals from the work of someone he respects without giving due credit for the brilliance of his or her work? It would seem that a Satanist, being a creature of the ego who wishes to honor worthy individuals and their ideas, would be more than happy to cite his or her influences precisely as such, most especially if some aspect of their thought is to become an integral part of the given Satanist's philosophy. What you seem to be describing above is a philosophically connected anthology of sources paired with commentary, in this case LaVey's. That is not what The Satanic Bible is, and if it were, the same standards would still hold—anthologies list their sources.


 Quote:
It sounds like you have sour grapes against a man who organized something new, something you have failed to do in whatever research you claim you did.

That would be very hypocritical of me, wouldn't it? Or could it be that I am holding LaVey to the same standard to which his philosophy holds him and, for that matter, everyone else?

I have absolutely no personal problem with LaVey. I never knew him, and certainly don't resent his codification of Satanism. The difference between you and I is that I refuse to apologize for Anton LaVey merely for being Anton LaVey, while your faulty defense has omitted what he himself believed about those who practice plagiarism alongside a claim to originality. If you don't understand the basic principles of intellectual property, citation, and the fact that presenting the ideas of others as your own is a form of psychic vampirism, I have no intention of continuing to explain it to you. Refute my logic or concede the point.

I will lastly mention, in response to your certainty of my failure at originality despite the fact that you have no idea what I do or what my contributions have been, that I am happy in my position. I am well-paid, well-sexed, permitted to travel anywhere in the world whenever I wish at virtually no expense to me, given regular stipends which allow me to devote maximum time to the work I love, granted access to the cutting edge of scholarship in my fields and others, placed in the company of intelligent people on a regular basis, and allowed to operate entirely as I see fit, with my own schedule of work, sleep, and play. I say all of this to advise caution with your words, since the ethos of Satanic meritocracy may place your false conclusion on a two-way street, urging me to ask what your own practical success or advent of novelty has been in this world.


 Quote:
As for that statement you posted in red, are you dense? Most sheep, cry out to relieved of their brains, money, and lives. They disguard this world and pray for the next where they can lay at the feet of J.Christ and company. Every day old and young are fleeced by churches, ministers, and priest who tell them to give up onto the lord. They urge them to give of their cash, their, homes, and bodies to satisfy the carnal urging of a church and ministry that tells them everything they feel is a sin.

If you really believe that that block of irrelevance offers a rebuttal to my quotation of the Sixth Satanic Rule of the Earth, then you have missed the point of its inclusion to such a degree that I will do better than your inane reply by not countering you at all.


 Quote:
Just because you can't see outside the box doesn't mean that the end of everything.

I assure you that I am enjoying the fresh air to my heart's content, while your view seems to be from inside a paper bag.


Z.


Edited by Zophos (04/03/10 11:08 AM)
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37342 - 04/03/10 04:08 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Zophos]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3898
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Pretty much anything can be rationalized. When you say that personal experience is not solid grounds for debate or a communicable form of evidence, you are entirely correct.

But really, so what? Satanism is for those that get it. We don't proselytize or try to gain converts, or claim any sort of epistemological 'rightness' to weigh and measure. I have been who and what I am since I can first remember. Whether by genetics from birth or early pre-memory experience or a combination of both is entirely un-important. Convincing you or anyone else is equally unimportant. Those that need to know already know.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#37343 - 04/03/10 04:14 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Zophos]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Okay, Zophos sweetie, I will be more clear for you.

"My issue is with Satanists who proudly assert a type of nativism with regard to Satanism itself, arguing that the personality structure of a Satanist (usually prefixed with the word "true" or "real") is innate within some people and not others. More to the point, most of them go on to say that those who "don't got it" never will...........Thus if my Satanic tendencies existed prior to its manifestation, which does not appear to be the case prima facie, there are absolutely no epistemological criteria by which we could adduce the fact. The claim that Satanists are born and not made, therefore, lacks support from either science or logic, being demonstrably against the findings of one and impossible to show at an individual level through the other......That Satanists are born and not made is a type of claim known as a universal affirmative, and to be true requires that criteria be established, and demonstration based on them given, which has not been done."

Your own words above, so if you want to get technical, you actually said/implied it. You took the roundabout route, but that is the simple jist of all of it. The idea/ understanding that many people have in regards to being born a Satanist may not be proved to your satisfaction, but that doesn't mean it is not true. This has been explained, examples cited, and further debated. Since you don't want to understand this simple thing there is no point in discussing it with you. We each completely disagree on this and never the twane shall meet.

You like to use smoke and mirrors in your arguments to deflect thoughts. Previously you wrote... "A child of three or even ten is incapable of thinking at the abstract level required to make a well-informed decision about whether or not he or she is a Satanist, and by the time this faculty has come into being, it is impossible for us or even the individual in question to know whether that decision is a product of a particular innate genetic arrangement or one of experience."
Now you write...
That this forum had a 13-year-old moderator at one point is inconsequential, since I never said that Satanists could not have the tendency to be so from an early age. Indeed, I said exactly the opposite... As well as....some Satanists are inclined to mesh with Satanic philosophy from an early age or possibly birth....

I like how you try to change the things you say from your previous post to your current one in order to try to change your position.

"There is no consensus, even a vague one, on the extent of genetic innateness of personality even in the scientific community, so how and why you feel that you are uniquely qualified to tell us is a justification I would love to hear."

Love that you pulled this one out because I stated how long it took you to decompress yourself and find Satanism compared to other people. Feeling a little insecure? That statement had no real bearing on what I said.

"Agreed, although I should specify that "what you make of it" does come with certain stipulations and limits with regard to the definition of Satanism. As I said in my earlier post, there are certain fundamental ideas which are incompatible with what Satanism is—a professed Satanist who believes in any god is not a Satanist at all. I'm merely stressing that point."

Once again you you change your words, and try to mock my grasp of your post in regards to what you said about Satan/Ritual chamber issue. Maybe if that was not what you meant you should think and write more clearer.

"I, a Satanist who in no uncertain terms has gone on record acknowledging the cohesive structure provided by The Satanic Bible as the central bastion which defined what Satanism is, am attempting in the same post to completely discredit its author without any desire whatever to reject the Satanism of which I acknowledge him as the founder."

Actually, in your various posts, you seem quite happy to bash the book and him, while calling yourself a "Satanic structuralist". You also are calling the book at one point "not an extraordinarily impressive piece of work, regardless of whether or not its claims are philosophically justifiable."

I guess you got upset with my choice of the words "Big Fucking Deal". Your personal experiences should have no place in discussion as you are fond of saying. I happen to agree with you in regard to personal intellectual/music rights. Once again, I will say it's well known, most people understand that he combined and summed up a personal philosophy that was not previously in one book. Fine, I agree with the Redbeard bit, he should have put a note in. If his book was so full of plagiarisms why wasn't he sued?

I don't see where I ever brought up the need to apologize for LaVey being LaVey. It seems that my sour grapes comment brought forth the need in you to explain who you are and your life. Then question who I am.

"Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved."

You used it in regard to intellectual theft, I used it in regards to physical, monitary, and spirtual theft.

Boxes, bags, inane bullshit places. It would seem that we disagree on things, and we should keep this more civil.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#37349 - 04/03/10 10:39 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Morgan]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
Dan_Dread:

 Quote:
But really, so what? Satanism is for those that get it. We don't proselytize or try to gain converts, or claim any sort of epistemological 'rightness' to weigh and measure. I have been who and what I am since I can first remember. Whether by genetics from birth or early pre-memory experience or a combination of both is entirely un-important. Convincing you or anyone else is equally unimportant. Those that need to know already know.

Let me first be clear by reiterating that when I speak of experience, I refer to both pre-memory and post-memory experience, not the former alone. You never mentioned the latter in your post. Satanism is indeed, exactly as you say, for those who get it, but my point is that not every Satanist "gets it" by simply finding a reflection in The Satanic Bible of what he or she already is. Consider a proponent of intelligent design who encounters a reputable source debunking it and advocating evolution. During the following period of cognitive dissonance and rejection, the individual nevertheless gradually begins reading more on the subject and, overwhelmed by the evidence only after said dissonance has been put aside, accepts the facts as they are. Through gradations of careful inquiry, rather than wholesale acceptance, the individual in question has come to shed previously cherished beliefs in favor of objective reality. The same is true of the "made" Satanist.

You and I share a strongly analytic, scientific mind, and if I might make a reasonable assumption, also a deep appreciation for knowledge. The discussion here is significant because it has relevant implications for the psychology of how individuals become Satanists or find their Satanism expressed, which I feel is certainly worth examining and knowing more about. That its practical applications may be limited or absent is extraneous, at least to me, since the same can be said of a great many scientific discoveries, to say nothing of music, theatre, art, literature, history, pure mathematics, and so forth. The advocate of a philosophy which prides itself on indulgence and self-gratification can surely see the value in exploring the facets and distinctions of his own way of life, nicht wahr?



Morgan:

 Quote:
Your own words above, so if you want to get technical, you actually said/implied it. You took the roundabout route, but that is the simple jist of all of it.

I have addressed this claim several times, both preceding and in what follows.


 Quote:
The idea/ understanding that many people have in regards to being born a Satanist may not be proved to your satisfaction, but that doesn't mean it is not true.

Allow me to cite the video on critical thinking posted in the Video Discussion Forum: "Even though demanding valid evidence may lead you occasionally to reject ideas that are poorly supported but nonetheless valid, if and when evidence accumulates for those ideas, an open mind will allow you to reconsider them, and possibly dislodge false ideas you'd previously accepted as true. This approach is promoted by science. [This is what I am doing.] By contrast, when you have an open mind that demands little or no evidence before accepting things, you leave your understanding of reality much more up to chance. Even worse, if you've accepted false ideas uncritically, and close your mind to anything that contradicts them, you won't recognize true ideas even when the evidence is overwhelming, and you'll sabotage your own capacity for learning. [This is what you are doing.]" (Open-mindedness, 7:30-8:11)

State the epistemological criteria by which we could know that your belief is universally true and provide me with valid evidence which supports it, and you have my word that I will be the first to retract my position in concession to yours. Until then, beliefs and faith statements will get you nowhere.


 Quote:
This has been explained, examples cited, and further debated. Since you don't want to understand this simple thing there is no point in discussing it with you. We each completely disagree on this and never the twane shall meet.

Examples do not prove a universal affirmative. A collection of white rabbits does not prove that all rabbits are white. Science demonstrates and supports the hypothesis that both genetics and life experience significantly determine the development of human personality. I have evidence, you do not. It's that simple. Refute my logic, or concede the point.


 Quote:
You like to use smoke and mirrors in your arguments to deflect thoughts. Previously you wrote... "A child of three or even ten is incapable of thinking at the abstract level required to make a well-informed decision about whether or not he or she is a Satanist, and by the time this faculty has come into being, it is impossible for us or even the individual in question to know whether that decision is a product of a particular innate genetic arrangement or one of experience."
Now you write...
That this forum had a 13-year-old moderator at one point is inconsequential, since I never said that Satanists could not have the tendency to be so from an early age. Indeed, I said exactly the opposite... As well as....some Satanists are inclined to mesh with Satanic philosophy from an early age or possibly birth....

The key phrase is "by the time this faculty has come into being." Human beings do not develop the intellectual capacity for abstract thought until between ages 12 and 15 (Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition, © 2009, Elsevier). What I have stated very clearly is that by the time a child comes to an age at which the abstract thinking necessary to grasp certain Satanic principles is possible, it is then impossible to determine scientifically (since epistemological criteria cannot be established) whether or not that tendency is innate. Since, however, science has shown that there is a complex interplay of genetics and environment at work in this process, the best claim is obviously the one supported by scientific evidence. That's as straightforward as it gets.


 Quote:
I like how you try to change the things you say from your previous post to your current one in order to try to change your position.

My position has not changed. Satanists become Satanists at different rates and in different ways. Some are inclined, and some are not. Once again, that's as straightforward as it gets.


 Quote:
Love that you pulled this one out because I stated how long it took you to decompress yourself and find Satanism compared to other people. Feeling a little insecure? That statement had no real bearing on what I said.

No insecurity at all. After all, the length of time a person has been a Satanist does not necessarily affect in any way his or her ability to employ its principles. This is true in any case, but especially if, as you yourself have so faithfully maintained, Satanists are born. Just as one mathematician may do in five years what others before could not in their entire lives, the relative real-world attainments and abilities of individual Satanists will speak for themselves, including yours and mine. Meritocratic stratification will out. And yes, it has everything to do with what you said. You stated a claim, failed to defend it in any evidential way, and then asserted the same claim with a pretentious undertone.


 Quote:
Once again you you change your words, and try to mock my grasp of your post in regards to what you said about Satan/Ritual chamber issue. Maybe if that was not what you meant you should think and write more clearer.

This from a person who writes "more clearer." I am loath to accept writing advice from a person whose own vacillating grammatical and linguistic integrity, conceptual misunderstanding of almost everything I have said notwithstanding, has not given me reason to do so. If what I have said is still unclear to you, perhaps I am not the cause.

Satanism as codified by Anton LaVey is atheistic, and I did nothing but say so in the passage you cited. Any "Dark Gods" are purely symbolic and do not exist. This is an elementary dogma of Satanism.


 Quote:
Actually, in your various posts, you seem quite happy to bash the book and him, while calling yourself a "Satanic structuralist". You also are calling the book at one point "not an extraordinarily impressive piece of work, regardless of whether or not its claims are philosophically justifiable."

How naïve. Is stating a demonstrable fact really bashing someone or their work? Is a Nietzschean forbidden from critiquing Nietzsche? The Satanic Bible simply does not support its claims with any kind of evidential rigor, nor does it intend to. My own position has been given already: The Satanic Bible is a manifesto structuring disparate but interrelated philosophical elements into a cohesive whole, a view by the way which you yourself have already affirmed. As stated in The Satanic Rituals, "Satanism demands study—not worship!"

I fully acknowledged without flinching that the components of Satanism were given cohesion by LaVey through The Satanic Bible, and I do so again now by repeating it not once but twice. Yet as Noctuary pointed out so sharply and accurately, "[The Satanic Bible] is about Satanism. [It is] NOT Satanism. We are the living embodiment of Satanic ideas..not the xerox machines of some book." The congruence that a person finds in reading that book, whether immediately from the first time or following gradations of inquiry, is the first step only, and if the fledgling Satanist is not to become a parrot or drone, justification through sound logic and evidence must follow. There is nothing wrong with this process. An enormous amount, perhaps the vast majority, of discoveries about the natural world have been made by people who began with a set of ideas that were speculatively accepted as educated hunches. These intuitive beliefs were nevertheless not justified by demonstration, which sparked their claimant's attempt to provide such. In other words, that a given perspective "suits" you does not make it true, and this includes the ideas put forth by LaVey in The Satanic Bible. No one with even a meager background in philosophy is going to tell you that a book with ~30 pages of unproven aphorisms and declarations is a rigorous argument. It very simply is not, and for my part, I'm glad that the book is structured this way, and appreciate rather than disparage the fact, since its lack of demonstration forces self-proclaimed Satanists either to construct an edifice to verify it, or else to fall prey to mindless acceptance of its every word. The same is true of its plagiarism and unreliable historical information, which likewise force one either to investigate them further, realizing that LaVey just like the rest of us was susceptible to instances of hypocrisy and incorrectness, or else to hold them implicitly as indubitable knowledge. "Ye shall know them by their fruits." Fate has afforded us a fallible book which both organizes a justifiable philosophy and at the same time includes elements which serve as cautionary notes for avoiding certain pitfalls. That is not bashing; that is rational skepticism.


 Quote:

I guess you got upset with my choice of the words "Big Fucking Deal".

No.


 Quote:
Your personal experiences should have no place in discussion as you are fond of saying.

Yes, but the difference is that, where I used my personal experiences to explain my fervency but not to defend my points, your argument was itself an appeal to personal experience as a form of evidence, which it is not.


 Quote:
I happen to agree with you in regard to personal intellectual/music rights. Once again, I will say it's well known, most people understand that he combined and summed up a personal philosophy that was not previously in one book. Fine, I agree with the Redbeard bit, he should have put a note in.

Yes. Error made by LaVey, lesson learned from it. Show respect by giving explicit credit to your sources.


 Quote:
If his book was so full of plagiarisms why wasn't he sued?

For the second time, I never said that The Satanic Bible was "full" of anything. It contains some passages of plagiarism, end of story. The reason he wasn't sued is very simple: Ragnar Redbeard was dead. The first edition of Might is Right appeared in 1890, and whether the book was written by Arthur Desmond or Jack London (the latter having no scholarly basis at all), the book's author had died before LaVey was even born. It took me less than two minutes to find and cross-reference all of this on Wikipedia. If you're going to ask a question on something independent of my own answer, please at least try to answer it yourself first.


 Quote:
I don't see where I ever brought up the need to apologize for LaVey being LaVey. It seems that my sour grapes comment brought forth the need in you to explain who you are and your life. Then question who I am.

I never questioned who you are, and I don't particularly care.


 Quote:
You used it in regard to intellectual theft, I used it in regards to physical, monitary, and spirtual theft.

You did, and that had nothing to do with what I was talking about or why I included the Sixth Satanic Rule in the first place.


 Quote:
It would seem that we disagree on things, and we should keep this more civil.

As with LaVey, I have no personal problem with you. Since you directly insulted me first, I will simply agree and encourage you to do so.


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37357 - 04/04/10 12:31 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Zophos]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Lets try again......

 Quote:
"Even worse, if you've accepted false ideas uncritically, and close your mind to anything that contradicts them, you won't recognize true ideas even when the evidence is overwhelming, and you'll sabotage your own capacity for learning. [This is what you are doing.]"


This is not what I am doing. Just because I look young in my image doesn't mean I don't know what I am talking about. I have been a Satanist for more than 25+ years at this point. I have learned, experienced, questioned, and forgotten more than you will ever know. That's not a put down, that is a fact. As I stated before, just because an idea/believe is not proven to YOUR satisfaction does not make it untrue. As with most Christians, no amount of evidence will ever make them believe that Jesus and company do not exist. In regards to the white rabbit bit, citing examples, people, their names, their experiences, won't make a difference to you because in the end, you don't know them, or would deny it.

 Quote:
"Human beings do not develop the intellectual capacity for abstract thought until between ages 12 and 15 ..."


Is this your full experience of every child? Most Satanists who claim to the idea of born not made have experiences, knowledge, and witnesses that predate the listed 12 and 15 to whom they are in regards to Satanic principles. You don't want any form of personal experiences listed as possible evidence, but if a person catches on fire they burn. Do you need to be set on fire to understand that people burn?

Fine, fine, I wrote more clearer. It doesn't change the fact that you talk in circles and back track and then change the meaning of your debate. Due to this, sometimes, you are just not clear in your presentation of your ideas.

 Quote:
"Satanism as codified by Anton LaVey is atheistic, and I did nothing but say so in the passage you cited. Any "Dark Gods" are purely symbolic and do not exist. This is an elementary dogma of Satanism."


I like how you changed it from my comment in regards to the use of Satan in rites to a comment made into the question of belief/dogma in Satanism.

Calling me naieve, doesn't change the fact that you now agree with what I said.

I already knew about the Jack London /Desmond bit regarding Might is Right. I thought that since you brought up that point, it was something you already knew. I guess I was wrong, you didn't know the finer points of what you were talking about and had to google it.

You did question who I am in regards to my statement of sour grapes on your part, it's written in your post. Whatever, that doesn't matter. I know who I am.

\:\) I like how you just prove me right in regards to the comment regarding the Sixth Satanic Rule. If you are going to use one of the rule or lists from the books, then you must be open to the fact that yours will not be the only valid interpretation of it.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#37361 - 04/04/10 02:00 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Morgan]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
 Quote:
This is not what I am doing. Just because I look young in my image doesn't mean I don't know what I am talking about.

Your age and appearance are irrelevant to me or this argument. I would say what I have to you even if you had a foot growing out of your chin.


 Quote:
I have been a Satanist for more than 25+ years at this point. I have learned, experienced, questioned, and forgotten more than you will ever know. That's not a put down, that is a fact.

No, it's presumption, since you know virtually nothing about me.


 Quote:
As I stated before, just because an idea/believe is not proven to YOUR satisfaction does not make it untrue.

And just because you continuously assert it against valid scientific evidence does not make it true. My claim retains the upper hand. "That's not a put down, that is a fact."


 Quote:
In regards to the white rabbit bit, citing examples, people, their names, their experiences, won't make a difference to you because in the end, you don't know them, or would deny it.

I don't have to deny it. Personal experiences do not qualify as evidence for a universal affirmative, and whether or not I know the people in question makes no difference. I could cite examples, people, names, and experiences of individuals who claim to have seen a ghost, far more than you could cite examples of your case, but that brings it no closer to being true or defensible as a claim. An argument from personal experience, as Dan_Dread mentioned, can be used to justify almost anything.


 Quote:
Is this your full experience of every child?

No, and it doesn't need to be. I need only show that abstract thought is not something humans are capable of from an early age for my points to hold, and I have done better than that.


 Quote:
Most Satanists who claim to the idea of born not made have experiences, knowledge, and witnesses that predate the listed 12 and 15 to whom they are in regards to Satanic principles.

Even if that's true, it comes no closer to proving a universal affirmative. You seem to be missing or ignoring the fact that humans are not like atoms; all members of the class 'human' do not behave in the same way. First-person ontology is impossible to represent by any epistemological standard, since by definition its existence is experiential in a purely subjective way. No matter how many personal experiences you have heard, the real possibility that they do not account for all cases exists whether you acknowledge it or not. Neither I nor anyone else have independent access to these experiences, which makes it impossible for me to verify by any criteria the claims that you're making from them. If twenty people signed a statement affirming that they had all seen a fairy whose physical attributes they all described identically, in what way could you possibly prove or disprove the claim based solely on that? I can't stress the point enough: that is not how evidence or evidential reasoning work. My own satisfaction or lack thereof has nothing to do with it.


 Quote:
You don't want any form of personal experiences listed as possible evidence, but if a person catches on fire they burn. Do you need to be set on fire to understand that people burn?

Isn't that an argument in my favor rather than yours? If I know the chemistry of what would happen if I were set on fire, then I have evidential reasons for believing it even if no one in history had ever been set on fire. A personal experience, in other words, would be a useless example in point, since my actual mode of knowing it comes from knowledge of chemistry. I have never seen or spoken to someone burned by 6M hydrochloric acid, but its chemical properties are known to me, meaning that I don't need to in order to recognize it as a fact. Your argument is backward.


 Quote:
I like how you changed it from my comment in regards to the use of Satan in rites to a comment made into the question of belief/dogma in Satanism.

Oy and vey. "What about the ritual chamber in regards to Dark Gods and personal creative drama as a motivating factor." Since that statement was made in a passage which claimed that I rejected the use of rituals as un-Satanic, which I never did, I responded as best I could to the limited spectrum of plausibility that I could deduce from your words.


 Quote:
Fine, fine, I wrote more clearer. It doesn't change the fact that you talk in circles and back track and then change the meaning of your debate. Due to this, sometimes, you are just not clear in your presentation of your ideas.

Obviously I can't speak about your subjective grasp of what I've said (no snide remark intended), but I disagree that I talk in circles or change my meaning. I reread most of our discussion and have tried to be charitable to your position on my clarity, but I really see nothing of the kind.


 Quote:
Calling me naieve, doesn't change the fact that you now agree with what I said.

I don't.


 Quote:
I already knew about the Jack London /Desmond bit regarding Might is Right.

So did I; I was referring to the dates of death for each person. You asked why LaVey wasn't sued, and since Might is Right was written in the late nineteenth century, my hunch was that Desmond and London were dead by the time LaVey was born, and that indeed was the case.


 Quote:
You did question who I am in regards to my statement of sour grapes on your part, it's written in your post. Whatever, that doesn't matter. I know who I am.

Wonderful. Enjoy.


 Quote:
I like how you just prove me right in regards to the comment regarding the Sixth Satanic Rule. If you are going to use one of the rule or lists from the books, then you must be open to the fact that yours will not be the only valid interpretation of it.

You have perhaps the most astonishing penchant I have ever seen for putting words in my mouth. I never said that more than one interpretation was not possible. What I said was that I was referring to LaVey's theft from someone whose ideas he valued and admired, while you followed it up with an exegesis of the rule in the context of Christianity. What, I ask you, have the two subjects to do with one another?


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37365 - 04/04/10 04:44 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Zophos]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
I'm tired of this. Thread locked.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
Page all of 4 1234>


Moderator:  SkaffenAmtiskaw, fakepropht, TV is God, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.073 seconds of which 0.007 seconds were spent on 61 queries. Zlib compression disabled.