Question for Athiest Satanists

[Darakash]

I have been reading many of the posts regarding Satanism today and find them very interesting, a thought keeps occurring to me, especially as I read things written from an Athiest Satanist point of view....could you explain/explore the difference(s) between this form of Satanism and Secular Humanism? They seem very similar to me and I am wondering what you think about that.

If you need more info on humanism, this link has their manifesto: Humanist Manifesto (http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html)

Thanks! DK

[Lunamoth]

:eyebrow: Atheist Satanism??

This is the first time I'm hearing of such a combo.

[Morning Star]

:eyebrow: Atheist Satanism??

This is the first time I'm hearing of such a combo.

As I understand it - most Satansits are atheists. Spiritualist Satanists are much more a breed of paganism I think...but it is sometimes hard to say.

[Darakash]

:eyebrow: Atheist Satanism??

This is the first time I'm hearing of such a combo.

In fact, if you check out the thread in this forum called Satanist FAQ's the author of the original post states:
"Do you believe in God?
We are athiests....

Do you believe in the Afterlife?
We are athiests....

And my question does not exactly apply to those who believe in a Deity...so, hence my seemingly strange title
DK

[Rain Gnosis]

There are a few differences. Humanism, in some ways, is like "Satanism Lite".

For example

THIRTEENTH: This world community must renounce the resort to violence and force as a method of solving international disputes. We believe in the peaceful adjudication of differences by international courts and by the development of the arts of negotiation and compromise. War is obsolete. So is the use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. It is a planetary imperative to reduce the level of military expenditures and turn these savings to peaceful and people-oriented uses.

Very different feeling then

V Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek!

IV If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

There are many, many principles on that page that I don't feel are fundamental at all to Satanism, though they may not be in direct conflict. And in other cases, there are principles described in a very nice, comfortable way, which could be stated differently if bluntly presented as in Satanism.

For example

Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism. We strive for the good life, here and now.

is not too different from

II Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams!

VIII Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!

and

FOURTH: Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses. There is no substitute: neither faith nor passion suffices in itself.

compared to

Stupidity -- The top of the list for Satanic Sins. The Cardinal Sin of Satanism. It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful. Ignorance is one thing, but our society thrives increasingly on stupidity. It depends on people going along with whatever they are told. The media promotes a cultivated stupidity as a posture that is not only acceptable but laudable. Satanists must learn to see through the tricks and cannot afford to be stupid.

Satanism includes magic, which Humanism dismisses as not real.

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

VII Acknowledge the power of magic if you have used it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

However, Humanism seems to focus on building peace - certainly not the core of Satanism!

IN CLOSING: The world cannot wait for a reconciliation of competing political or economic systems to solve its problems. These are the times for men and women of goodwill to further the building of a peaceful and prosperous world.

XI When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

[mattolsen]

I'm not sure I understand what an atheist satanist would be. An atheist does not believe in any supreme being or diety... this seems to contradict the satanist. Could someone please clarify this.

[Morning Star]

I'm not sure I understand what an atheist satanist would be. An atheist does not believe in any supreme being or diety... this seems to contradict the satanist. Could someone please clarify this.

Satanists (most satanists and the position taken in the Satanic bible) do not worship Satan. They merely allow 'Satan' to help them realize their own divinity.

[mattolsen]

Satanists (most satanists and the position taken in the Satanic bible) do not worship Satan. They merely allow 'Satan' to help them realize their own divinity.

What I don't understand though is that if you still "allow" satan to help them realize their own divinity they are recognizing a higher power. Maybe agnostic Satanist but aeithiest satanist just doesn't make sense to me.

[Sage Rainsong]

As I understand it satanism (LeVeyan) are people that see satan as a symbol for things that we are taught to deny like lust, pride ect.. They don't actually believe in satan or any form of divinity. It sort of beyond atheism in the sense that not only do they lack a religion they are anti-religion, particularly with Christianity. At least this is my limited understanding of Satanism.

[mattolsen]

As I understand it satanism (LeVeyan) are people that see satan as a symbol for things that we are taught to deny like lust, pride ect.. They don't actually believe in satan or any form of divinity. It sort of beyond atheism in the sense that not only do they lack a religion they are anti-religion, particularly with Christianity. At least this is my limited understanding of Satanism.

That makes a lot more sense now, thanks for the explanation.

[MorningDove030202]

I think the thing that some NeoPagans, Satanists, and Humanists have incommon is Headonism. We enjoy life, we don't have a problem enjoying ourselves, and we don't get hung up on feeling bad about having fun. That said I think the difference between a Satanist and Humanists is their ethics. Satanists don't care if their brand of fun hurts others. Humansists are more responcible with their Headonism. NeoPagans, being a diverse bunch, can fall on either side of the mark. I personaly consider myself a "Responsible Headonist" meaning that I don't do fun things that would harm others.

BTW, there are even atheist Pagans, though it's posible it's just a phase and eventualy they will expereince Divinity in a way they can't turn into metaphore. I supose this could happen to any atheist, not just the Pagans, but also the Satanists, and secular humanists.

Dove

[Darakash]

There are a few differences. Humanism, in some ways, is like "Satanism Lite".
<snipped>
Satanism includes magic, which Humanism dismisses as not real.
<snipped>
However, Humanism seems to focus on building peace - certainly not the core of Satanism!

Rain Gnosis,
Thank you for your most thorough reply! "Satanism Lite" seems like a perfect term for how I was seeing the comparison between the two! Ya know,, I was also seeing many similarities in Philosphy with Ayn Rand's Objectivism, but she too denied the existence of anything supernatural, magical etc. (Although I don't think she necessarily addressed Magick specifically. And just to be clear, I do not see magick as supernatural..I think of it as a natural manipulation of energy, but think Rand would have included it among her "doesn't exist" category)

In terms of the "building peace" thing, I certainly see your point, but this brings me to another question...and forgive me if it is answered somewhere already, is there any objective within the/your Satanist faith for "personal" peace? I mean, is it believed that acting according to your nature as a human animal will bring you to peace or something like it?

[Jolixte]

In terms of the "building peace" thing, I certainly see your point, but this brings me to another question...and forgive me if it is answered somewhere already, is there any objective within the/your Satanist faith for "personal" peace? I mean, is it believed that acting according to your nature as a human animal will bring you to peace or something like it?
I don't think they see it as personal peace. I'm not sure how exactly to answer you, but I'm sure the satanists I know don't look at it as them finding peace for themselves.

[Darakash]

I think the thing that some NeoPagans, Satanists, and Humanists have incommon is Headonism. <snipped>

I personaly consider myself a "Responsible Headonist" meaning that I don't do fun things that would harm others.

Dove

Interesting take on things, Dove, interesting though too, is that there are Hedonists who believe that by doing what is necessary for their own happiness (whether it hurts others or doesn't) IS being responsible. I guess one way to look at it, is as a matter of perspective....let us say someone is homosexual and that "hurts" their parents and maybe even destroys their relationship....most of us, who thinks of ourselves as very responsible would still say that they should do what makes them happy, to live their nature, to be who they are and be happy. Now, a "less responsible" (for lack of a better phrase) hedonist might extend this type of thinking to what we view as greater levels of harm, but is that really being irresponsible or is it just living one's nature?

DK

[AdNoctum]

Satanists don't care if their brand of fun hurts others.

Not true. Satanism of all varieties is very emphatic about the concept of personal responsibility. Harm should only be inflicted upon those who deserve it, i.e. someone who harms you. If you hurt someone needlessly, you need to be accountable for that.

[Rain Gnosis]

Hi AdNoctum - I'm curious as to your point about accountability for harming others. I don't see anything about that in the Satanic statements, rules, or sins, but maybe I'm missing something? Could you explain the principle of LaVeyan Satanism that warns people to only harm those who harm you?

I notice many Satanists admittedly use the term and imagery intentionally to offend people - not just those who harm them. Also, there is the Satanic rule that states "If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy" - annoying someone is not harming them..? Similarly, another Satanic rule is "When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him". Also, LaVeyan Satanists don't believe in any outer divine force or authority that will punish them for misdeeds, nor in karma, etc., so far as I know? What/who would hold a Satanist accountable for harming someone who hasn't harmed them first, if they are only accountable to themselves?

However, I know every LaVeyan Satanist has his/her own take, so I'm interested to learn more about what you've said.

[MorningDove030202]

Interesting take on things, Dove, interesting though too, is that there are Hedonists who believe that by doing what is necessary for their own happiness (whether it hurts others or doesn't) IS being responsible. I guess one way to look at it, is as a matter of perspective....let us say someone is homosexual and that "hurts" their parents and maybe even destroys their relationship....most of us, who thinks of ourselves as very responsible would still say that they should do what makes them happy, to live their nature, to be who they are and be happy. Now, a "less responsible" (for lack of a better phrase) hedonist might extend this type of thinking to what we view as greater levels of harm, but is that really being irresponsible or is it just living one's nature?

DK


In your example I don't think that the gay child is realy harming the parents. The parents are harmed by their own opinions/beliefs about gay people, the son isn't doing anything that directly harms his parents. You could say the same thing about my parents being harmed by me being Wiccan, but hey, it's not my fault they belive I will go to hell. See the difference?

Dove

[MorningDove030202]

Not true. Satanism of all varieties is very emphatic about the concept of personal responsibility. Harm should only be inflicted upon those who deserve it, i.e. someone who harms you. If you hurt someone needlessly, you need to be accountable for that.


I think that Humanists would say that no one ever deserves physical harm. Concequences is what I usualy hear Humanists talk about in terms of punishment for criminals.

Dove

[AdNoctum]

Hi AdNoctum - I'm curious as to your point about accountability for harming others. I don't see anything about that in the Satanic statements, rules, or sins, but maybe I'm missing something? Could you explain the principle of LaVeyan Satanism that warns people to only harm those who harm you?

Well, I'll warn ya, I'm not LaVeyan. ;) But I still feel like I can comment on this.

LaVey said in the Satanic Bible "Hate your enemies with a whole heart; and if a man smite you on one cheek, smash him on the other!" Basically it's the idea of Lex Talionis, or "an eye for an eye." If someone hurts you, they are opening themselves up to your retaliation. It also works the other way. If you hurt someone, you're opening yourself up to their natural reaction to strike back. If you don't want people to hurt you, then you best not go around hurting others. I hope that made sense.

Of course, this isn't to say that Satanists always think in terms of Lex Talionis. Sometimes turning the other cheek is necessary.

Also, there is the Satanic rule that states "If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy" - annoying someone is not harming them..? Similarly, another Satanic rule is "When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him".

Exactly what I was saying before. "Bother no one," unless someone bothers you. Now, what you might do depends on your definition of the word "destroy," which can mean anything from "kill" to "demolish" to "subdue" or "to put an end to," according to dictionary.com. Of course, LaVey could have also been using exaggeration for effect.

What/who would hold a Satanist accountable for harming someone who hasn't harmed them first, if they are only accountable to themselves?

Well, I would think the police would be after such a person. :) A Satanist is accountable to him or herself first and foremost, but as a member of society (s)he is accountable to others (even if they don't believe that they are).

I think that Humanists would say that no one ever deserves physical harm. Concequences is what I usualy hear Humanists talk about in terms of punishment for criminals.

*shrug* I'm not a Humanist, so I wouldn't know. I'm not sure if many Satanists really identify with the Humanist movement.

[Rain Gnosis]

Well, I'll warn ya, I'm not LaVeyan. ;) But I still feel like I can comment on this.

I agree :)

If you hurt someone, you're opening yourself up to their natural reaction to strike back. If you don't want people to hurt you, then you best not go around hurting others. I hope that made sense.

Yep, I see what you're thinking now. I guess I don't see that as one of the tenets of Satanism, but the logic can follow. No guarantee that the person you harm will be able to harm you back, and then again, no guarantee that when you harm someone in retaliation because they harmed you first that it'll prevent them from harming you again.... I think that's why LaVeyan Satanism tends to lead to a lot of fistfights (metaphorically and online especially).

Exactly what I was saying before. "Bother no one," unless someone bothers you.

Ah, I read your quote

Harm should only be inflicted upon those who deserve it, i.e. someone who harms you.

as "harm only those who harm you" - not "who bother you", I guess.

Of course, LaVey could have also been using exaggeration for effect.

:eyebrow: Quite likely :)

[Darakash]

In your example I don't think that the gay child is realy harming the parents. The parents are harmed by their own opinions/beliefs about gay people, the son isn't doing anything that directly harms his parents.....

This was sort of my point; Harm is a VERY subjective experience in many situations...obviously most of us agree that kicking the crap out of someone or killing them or some such is harm; however, I can think of many non-physical actions that could be seen as harm or not depending on your perspective. In terms of physical harm, it seems to me, that most of the "eye for an eye" suggestions in the various Satanist texts I have seen quoted here are put forth as a pure form of self defense or protection, which since "self" seems very important in the Satanist philosophy would make sense in terms of being "responsible" action.

So, that's kinda where I was going there, hope that makes sense?
DK