h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You ask the question, "you may wonder why anyone would call themselves a Satanist." Though I suspect you know the answer, you haven't answered it.

For those of you who are wondering the same thing in earnest, Satanists are using the traditional symbols of "evil" in the monotheist religions (principally Christianity, but also Islam and Judaism). They use these to try and draw attention to the hypocricy, or at least failings, in the doctrines of these religions. That and pointing out that they really don't like the above religions.

heh I think the truth is Lavey wanted to amass a whole mess of publicity so he ripped off Christianity.

I seem to recall that LaVey said this himself.

Wellll... it's not really about ripping off Christianity. The Satan figure travels through all and every culture. Perhaps you could say that it's inverting social trends - it's not all about wearing black and cursing the Judeo-Christian god.

In fact, that's not really much to do with it at all. Certain Satanists do that, but then certain Satanists are swingers. Just because one does it, it doesn't mean to say that ALL do. Unlike most other religions. The one aspect of Satanism, is that those who ARE, are varied and colourful and not exactly what you might expect.

If you are talking about the rituals - inversion of Christian rituals is a very basic way of looking at it. I would suggest the reading of "The Satanic Rituals" in order to learn more...

Why I call myself a Satanist is because of a few things. One is that I identified with what LaVey wrote. Not agreed, not wished I could be like that. I *am* that, through and through. The second is that it's a provocative term that shocked white Christian America (remember, it was written in the 60's)...and in being provocative and intelligent (these are basic terms, obviously), one is playing out the role of Satan in society. Be it covertly, or blatent.

Ah but theres satanism and theres laveyism. Lavey in a lot of ways just ripped the Catholic Church off. The Black mass being a very obvious example of this(in point of fact the first documented black masses were preformed by Catholic priests).

No. There is Satanism, and then there are nutcases. No more, and no less.

And as for the Black Mass - I mentioned that to make a point. It exposes those who haven't actually read the books he wrote.

Thats just it crazy though they may be the nutcases ARE the satanists. They are probably more common then you think(although the notion of highly organized cults to the extent most Fundamentalists talk on and on about is a joke as we both know). They have also been around a lot longer then Lavey. Figures like the Marquis de Sade and Giles De Rais come to mind as famous examples.

Gilles de Rais was a paedophile, not a Satanist.

de Sade...? Maybe so - *if* that definition of Satanism had been around at that time. I'm guessing though that you didn't mean in that way, and were in some way referring to his sexual exploits, and in a negative way.

Um Rais gleefully confessed to Satanism as well as pedophilia and a host of other crimes.Of course I mean historical satanism not laveyism.

I think, in talking about "satanism", you are actually talking about what I call "devil worship." Most satanists make a distinction between the two.

LaVey Satanists are a recognised religion that does not, as a rule, recognise the existance of supernatural beings...much less worship them.

The freaks you are talking about rip from Christianity, perform Black Masses in true worship to a mythical "devil", etc.

And actually, I think DeSade would have counted as a Satanist...I would have been proud to know him, but then I don't think he was as horrendous as myth makes him out to have been.

Simpe put: Satanism: The worship of the Judeo Christian Satan. Thats been the meaning of the word for about two thousand years.

Laveyism: Hedonists afraid of the implications of there own beliefs.

I respect the wack jobs more then I've ever respected Lavey or ever will? Why because the wack jobs are at least consistent, inteligent and set in there beliefs. Lavey was to scared to follow through the logic of his own arguement. For example if humanity is as he argues inherently evil and we should embrace our own nature as mere animals why should we be held accountable to any thing moralistic? By his original logic child molesters should be absolutely acceptable because they are indulging there own inner evil. Yet he turns around and trys to place morality after denouncing the idea humans are better then animals(animals will attack and rape the young and defenseless, and some animals even kill with out need). If he had followed his conclusions to there logical end he'd be no different then those you term insane and quite honestly i'd have more respect for him.

Why should we hold ourselves accountable if we are animals?

KevinM, I think that says a lot more about your personality than ours. Are you afraid to admit your own nature because you couldn't control yourself if you accepted you were no better than any other animal?

Why I hold myself accountable for my own actions...because only I am responsible for my actions.

>>>"Yet he turns around and trys to place morality after denouncing the idea humans are better then animals(animals will attack and rape the young and defenseless, and some animals even kill with out need). If he had followed his conclusions to there logical end he'd be no different then those you term insane and quite honestly i'd have more respect for him."

And humans don't attack and kill and rape the young? Didn't you use the example of paedophilia just before you wrote that? That is natural behaviour, instinctual to animals. As far as I have studied, every single ounce of behaviour that humans exhibit, other animals also exhibit.

What makes the difference are the social laws that we live by, and what you determine is right or wrong. Then sticking by what you decide to live by.

Just because something is natural, it certainly doesn't make it right.

As for Rais - if a paedophile claims his actions are sanctioned by God, would you believe him? No. He would be a nutjob.

>>>"Why because the wack jobs are at least consistent, inteligent and set in there beliefs."<<<

Then why are they wack jobs? If they are intelligent (sic) and consistent...how could they be wack jobs?



Your arguments don't make much sense.

Hitler was also extremily inteligent and consistent but that doesn't make him sane. To go into an explanation of why legitimate satanists are insane would take longer then I have any desire to go into and since this is a discusion fo the cult of Lavey has no real bearing on the discussion(yes I know its a legally recognized religion but that isn't particularly signifigant given how easy becomming a state recognized religion can be in many states particularly CA which if memory serves is where the Church of Satan was first begun).

As to your own points yes thats precisely my point. Lavey was championing the base desires of mankind. Yet he then turned around and laid out moral rules about what should and should not be done. Examples: When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there, Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal, 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, Do not harm little children, Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food, When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him. All of these are taken from his 11 satanic rules of the earth. Yet weigh these against the rest of his teachings.

He claimed Satan represents indulgence(don't disagree) and all of the so called sins. He in short creates an unresolvable paradox. Why should Satanism condemn a serial pedophile? That person is only indulging there desire to sin. They are in fact epitomizing the satanic ideal by rejecting social morality and following there own base desires. Yet Lavey tells us not to harm little children. He wimped out rather then stand by his own statements. Lets compare this to those Christiantiy respects. Christ, the apostles and people like Jeanne Dearc. All of them when given the choice were brutally executed rather then conform to what society said they should be. Lavey buckled rather then condone socially unacceptable acts. Who showed real strength the answer is obvious.

I would agree that humans have inherently base desires. Our desires are not what make us different then the animals its our reason that does. No animal we are aware of has the human capacity to think and reason. Reason is what gives us morality which is what really makes humans better then animals. We could indiscriminatly slaughter and force our sexual desires on each other like beasts but we can choose not to. This is why the great religions of history have always focused on personal choice. Man does not ultamitely get damned just because he followed his basest instincts we get damned because we are capable of being better then those instincts. We have on the one hand men who are really poster boys for Lavey: Dahmer, Hitler, Manson, Reis, and Jack the Ripper(all of whom indulged in there own base desires instead of following "hypocritical" morality). Then on the other hand we have men like Christ, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. We have the humans who acted like animals and the humans who acted based on traditional morality(Christian in two cases and some thing not far removed in the case of Gandhi). Who does the world respect and still listen to? Who will be remembered with contempt?

Personally I choose to exercise my free will and follow those who really did some thing to benefit the world. Will I ever be the man that any of them were? I doubt it but thats not the point. I'd rather be forgotten then remembered for acting like an animal any day.

I'm not sure why you don't get it by now, but seeing as your answers are so easy to answer, I'll entertain you...

>>>"Yet weigh these against the rest of his teachings."<<<

He didn't "teach", he gave opinions that people are willing to listen to. No one "follows" LaVey, and if they do, they certainly aren't Satanists.

>>>"He claimed Satan represents indulgence(don't disagree) and all of the so called sins. He in short creates an unresolvable paradox. Why should Satanism condemn a serial pedophile? That person is only indulging there desire to sin. They are in fact epitomizing the satanic ideal by rejecting social morality and following there own base desires. Yet Lavey tells us not to harm little children. He wimped out rather then stand by his own statements."<<<

Why? Why should Satanists condemn a serial paedophile? Don't you know why? To begin with, because it is morally reprehensible!!!! If you can't work out why someone, anyone would condemn a serial paedophile, you have certain issues you need to work out. But if you want to get down to what Anton LaVey wrote, then I suggest you check out all of what he wrote, instead of these select phrases that so-say "contradict" themselves. You yourself quoted the "Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal." Children are unable to give the mating signal, being under the age of legal consent, as well as not fully mature physically. Being a paedophile involves harming others, not to mention breaking several basic social and legal rules. Satanism is *not* about selfish indulgance, and yes I am allowed to disagree with you, so please don't attempt to try and silence me. It is about RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST. As you would know, if you actually read the text you quote. Even if you disregarded morality and the issue of harming small children, it is still not within the realm of rational self interest, because it has negative consequences for the person doing it. You end up in jail, you ostracise yourself from society, and become the target for violence and hatred - none of which benefit your survival.

So, if you haven't worked it out by now, being a serial paedophile is not behaviour in order with Satanism. It is selfish, harmful, destructive behaviour. And I didn't even touch on the fact that it's a mental illness...

>>>"Lets compare this to those Christiantiy respects. Christ, the apostles and people like Jeanne Dearc. All of them when given the choice were brutally executed rather then conform to what society said they should be. Lavey buckled rather then condone socially unacceptable acts. Who showed real strength the answer is obvious."<<<

I'm not quite sure how he buckled to social conventions...but lets compare this to reality. Satanists live by reality, they enjoy life not death. Unlike Christianity, we do not spend our whole lives preparing for death - we have better things to do. LaVey recognised that life was more important than death; that this "honour" concept is a lie. Who does it benefit? No one. As I said above, Satanism is based around the idea of rational self-interest...LaVey never conformed to society, unless it benefited him (I think you may find a direct quote regarding that in the Satanic Bible, if you care to look it up). It is not about strength (strength? Where is strength in sacrificing your life for a moral you could easily keep to yourself?), but what benefits oneself. LaVey laid out what he believed in a book, and people can either choose to agree, or disagree. He was well aware most would disagree - such is the nature of Satanism.

When given a choice to live or die, I would rather live, as did LaVey.

"Rather reign in hell
Than serve in heaven"

- John Miton, "Paradise Lost"

>>>" I would agree that humans have inherently base desires. Our desires are not what make us different then the animals its our reason that does. No animal we are aware of has the human capacity to think and reason. Reason is what gives us morality which is what really makes humans better then animals. "<<<

No sweetie. Reason gives us CHOICE and the ability to back up our decisions. Morality is all down to what you personally decide is right and wrong. It has nothing to do with being different from the animals. You sound forcefed by religion. Remember; it's all just a theory. If you have studied human behaviour as a section of psychology, you would know that nothing is decided, and theories are changing as we speak.

>>>"We could indiscriminatly slaughter and force our sexual desires on each other like beasts but we can choose not to."<<<

Animals don't mate and slaughter indiscriminately. Where did you get that idea? They kill those that threaten, or those they wish to eat. They mate with those who are attractive - ie: those who carry the superior genes. It's not a big free for all out there y'know. And, as far as I know, from what I have studied, we behave in the exact same way. The only difference is, we have an archaic institution in place to try and force this false idea of what we should or shouldn't do. Why on earth so many people listen to them, I do not know. I suppose it's because a lot of people aren't intelligent enough to decide for themselves (see the period of German history when Hitler was in power if you feel like contradicting me).

>>>"This is why the great religions of history have always focused on personal choice. Man does not ultamitely get damned just because he followed his basest instincts"<<<

Hah! Don't make me laugh. When can choice exist when a punishment is threatened for one choice, and a reward exist for the other? That ideal of choice is a myth, and I pity you for being so blind.

>>>"we get damned because we are capable of being better then those instincts. "<<<

Being better than what? Why do you have such hang ups about sex and death?

>>>"We have on the one hand men who are really poster boys for Lavey: Dahmer, Hitler, Manson, Reis, and Jack the Ripper(all of whom indulged in there own base desires instead of following "hypocritical" morality)."<<<

They certainly aren't poster boys for LaVey. Not sure where you got that idea. Murderers and the mentally ill? Hardly very Satanic. Satanism, once again, is not about blind idiotic indulgance.

>>>"Then on the other hand we have men like Christ, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. We have the humans who acted like animals and the humans who acted based on traditional morality(Christian in two cases and some thing not far removed in the case of Gandhi). Who does the world respect and still listen to? Who will be remembered with contempt? "<<<

Christ? A fool, and at the most, a character in a book. You don't know if he really existed. Gandhi changed the world to benefit himself. And Martin Luther King Jr. was hardly the most Christian of all folks. What with his mistresses and all... It doesn't matter what the world thinks, just what I think.

>>>"Personally I choose to exercise my free will and follow those who really did some thing to benefit the world. Will I ever be the man that any of them were? I doubt it but thats not the point. I'd rather be forgotten then remembered for acting like an animal any day."<<<

But you do act like an animal, regardless of whether you wish to admit it or not. Living a life of self deception is the only choice you are making right now - you've not exercised free will. If you read the Satanic Bible at all, you didn't read it properly, and that's probably because you had a pre-conceived opinion that you just can't get rid of. That's not exercising free will, is it? Following people, instead of being your own person, that's not exercising free will either. Walking into things with an open mind, and taking opinions from all sources before making up your mind, now THAT is exercising free will. Taking the time before you make decisions, now THAT is exercising free will.

But still, this is a fun debate.

Do I act like an animal? Lets see do I kill people when I'm in a bad mood? No. Do I rape women I find attractive who will not consent to have sex with me? NO. Do I have sex with any human who's reached puberty regardless of social mores? NO. In short no I don't act like an animal. Animals do all of those things most humans do not. The ones who do we label mentally ill or criminals. The problem here isn't ignorance on my part its a very Disney like version of nature.

Animals attack even when they aren't hungry or threatened this is a matter of fact. Animals take sex when they want it based on instinctive drives not on the consent nor the age of the partner.

ONe of the most basic problems in Laveyism is that it uses a lot of words to say very little. Rational self interest? Define that exactly please? Are there reasons not to act like a serial raper of children? By most ethical systems sure but if you're using animals as a model absolutely not.

As to Christ and his existence all we have is multiple first hand eyewitness accounts. Pretty much the same evidence we have that Julius Ceaser existed. People question his existence because they don't want to believe a man existed who did what he did not because the evidence is weak. Gandhi may have changed the world for his own reasons but in the end he did so through moral means instead of violence. And King may not have been perfect but again he changed things for the better through peace instead of expediancy. The serial killers on the other hand are a model of the core of Laveyism if you edit out the backpeddling ethics. They acted based on what they wanted. They understood there own nature and acted based upon it not much removed from animals. As for the weak argeument related to food and protection(not true some animals are known to hunt and kill even when not hungry particularly higher animals) what about those serial killers who eat there victims?

As for forming my own oppinions you'd be suprised. I have taken the time to read writings of lavey and even talk to members of his church(the Radio show I cohost had one of the highest ranking members on for an extended interview). To be blunt I find his writing style weak, his ideas ubsurd and cowardly, and him specificly to be a fool. If he had followed his own original ideas to there logical conclusion he'd have earned at least a smidigen of respect. Yet he didn't he backpeddled throwing in a bunch of arbitrary rules that make little sense in relationto the original point(if a wolf comes across a deer where it beds down the wolf will kill the deer, if any animal is in heat it will mate with any thing it can with out respect to the age, willingness or blood relation of the other animal). Either we are no better then animals, worse then animals or as I would argue we have a choice. We can do what Lavey suggests and act as we please with in the few imaginary limits he invented in which case we really are no better then animals, we can try to be better then animals by acting on morality, or we can be no different from them and throw out any sort of morality. The morality of nature can be summed up in two words: SURVIVE AND REPRODUCE. Consider Lavey says to not harm little children. This is not any thing an animal would do. Predators kill what ever they can get there hands on which is usually the very young, the old, or sick. They mate with who ever they please regardless of age to for that matter. Saying people shouldn't is elevating us above the actions of animals and restricting people's ability to enjoy what Satan represents by Lavey's own word.

...In defence of (nonhuman) animals

"Lets see do I kill people when I'm in a bad mood? ... Animals attack even when they aren't hungry or threatened this is a matter of fact."

Precisely *which* animals kill simply as a result of being in a bad mood (and how do you *know* they're in a bad mood)?

Some predators *will* kill as a matter of reflex in uncommon circumstances, such as a fox in a henhouse, or (I'd guess) a satiated lion surprised by an antelope within paw-striking distance, but over-killing is obviously a bad idea in general from an evolutionary point of view, and thus expected to be rare. I'm not aware of it being a common occurence.

(Obviously, dogs and cats *can* kill without need, but being partly domesticated, and thus infantised, and/or being selected partly for their ability to kill *for* us, they can't really be counted as *wild* animals.)

On the other hand, humans do kill large numbers of other animals for 'sport'

Humans:0 Animals:1


"Do I rape women I find attractive who will not consent to have sex with me? NO. Do I have sex with any human who's reached puberty regardless of social mores? ... Animals take sex when they want it based on instinctive drives not on the consent nor the age of the partner."

Animals (I assume you mean *male* animals) also tend to mate with ovulating females to the exclusion of any other females. They don't waste their time or sperm on ones that aren't giving off fertility signals, so they stay away from juvenile females and postmenapausal grandmothers

Humans:0 Animals:2


Actions characterisable as rape aren't exactly the rule in the animal kingdom. In many species they're nonexistent, and in other highly unlikely, since most females are capable of making mating by an undesired male difficult at best, if not impossible.
Unlike in human rape, since the only real point of sex for the vast majority of male animals is to produce offspring, rather than some sad power trip, there is little point in their significantly damaging (let alone killing) the female in the mating process.

Humans:0 Animals:3


I'm really puzzled by the logic of the "Animals do all of those things most humans do not" argument. It would probably be better stated as "most animals don't do these things, and neither do most humans", which doesn't seem to be saying a huge amount.
If I were to say: "I just heard that a [insert human racial stereotype here] committed a crime miles away, but most white Anglo-Saxons wouldn't do anything like that", many people might be tempted to think I was either a bigot or an idiot.


"The problem here isn't ignorance on my part its a very Disney like version of nature."

The problem is that humans are *not* inherently superior to other animals in every aspect of life. In some areas we *are* in a league of our own, but in others we really aren't anything at all special. A Disneyfied view of human nature isn't really helpful either.

"Ah but theres satanism and theres laveyism. Lavey in a lot of ways just ripped the Catholic Church off. The Black mass being a very obvious example of this(in point of fact the first documented black masses were preformed by Catholic priests)."

Speaking as a lapsed Catholic with a good working knowledge of Christianity then I have to ask: why is it just the RC Mass that the satanists rip off?

Why aren't there, for instance, Satanists who rip off the good old Church of England and have a Black (Un)Holy Communion, or Satanist Methodists who do a Black Lord's Supper(with Ribena replacing wine, natch)or Satan's Witnesses, who once a year get together in a football stadium to watch only two or three senior members of the cult perform a Black Breaking of Bread....

the fact that only Catholicism seems worthy of notice and parody is interesting!

From AskOxford:
• noun the worship of Satan, typically involving a travesty of Christian symbols and practices.

http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=satanist&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact

From my concise oxford dictionary:
1 the worship of satan, with a travesty of Christian forms 2 the pursuit of evil for its own sake 3 deliberate wickedness

So Lavey, it would seem, is trying to invent his own language.

Catholicism has the others beat in age and is probably the best known branch of Christianity (ask the average guy on the street about most of those rituals and they probably have only heard of Catholic Mass unless they are part of those denominations). Also as has been observed the black mass actually was started by Catholic priests in France as a way to cast spells (love spells usually).