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

Thanks for a truely interesting article. I have a question. You say that satanism can be thought of as a "Do whatever you need to do to make yourself happy, as long as it doesn't interfere with the happiness of others" thing. This is something that I, as a christian person, totally agree with. The same idea is more often expressed by the frase "freedom under responsability". But if this is the central message in satanism then I would say that the term "satanism" is highly inapropriate. It is obvious that this word creates lots of misunderstandings. Why would anyone want to be misunderstood?

It doesn't make any sense, naming a bunch of opinions after a guy who actualy has nothing (or very little) to do with them and thereby cause thousands of misunderstandings about the same opinions. Doesn't satanists want to reach out with their ideas? You must understand why satanism to me sounds more like a kids-wanting-to-provoce-their-parents thing than something serious.

However, if you are willing to skip the "doesn't interfere with the happiness of others" part, I can see at least some reason to call it satanism. But then again, egoism would still fit that description better.

My understanding of this (and its a very narrow understanding, so hopefully someone will reply with something better, but I am here now, so alas, here goes is that LaVey used the term Satanism as somewhat an advertising gimmick. He knew that it would cheese off the Christian Community, and they in their outrage would generate lots of publicity for his movement. Sure, he would be decried by many, but at least those who were like minded would see his beacon.

-- ZenMondo

A fitting answer, but not one that would increase ones respect for the church of satan a lot. Satan as an advertising gimmick!? Still, I can see no reason for anyone to call him-/herself a satanist, but to piss christians off. Is this really mature? (Don't get me wrong, I am still willing to be educated.)

Well I serioulsy doubt that any Satanist would really care what a Christian thinks of him/her because of the name of their chosen religion. I don't think Satanists call themselves such looking for respect by those who would find offense in that. They are content to use a label they beleive applies to them, and are not too concerned what others think as a first assumption.

When you learn what Satanists believe it has pretty much nothing to do with the mythical Satan, and even less with the Christian God.

If a Christian or anyone is offended at the term 'Satanist' that is THEIR hang-up, not the Satanists. It is up to those who are offended to change their attitude, not to those offending to change their name.

(Though I wish that an actual Satanist would contribute to this thread so as to clarify any mistakes I've made while playing "Devil's Advocate" <-- teehee could not resist the pun, I'm Irish and geneticly disposed to punnery)

-- ZenMondo

I think that you are right in some of that. If christians get upset about this whole thing, it is probably mainly their own problem. If it is disrespectfull towards anyone to call oneself a satanist, then I would say that this lack of respect probably is nothing but healthy(although in my opinion perhaps a bit childish). At the same time I am almost certain that if it wasn't so radical to call oneself a satanist, then not very many people would hang on to the term just
because it suits their beliefs well. Well, perhaps (hopefully) those who already are satanists would continue to be so, but I still do think that the lot that proclaims themselves satanists do it mainly
to provoke or to be interesting or whatever. I'd even say that almost any satanist could testify about this. I wouldn't mind to be wrong about this, but that is what I think.

What label would you propose for those who subscribe to Satanist doctirne?

Lucifer was God's most beautiful angel. His damning sin was an overwhelming pride in his own achievements. He set himself on the same level as the divine, and was cast into hell for it. If you accept the argument that the Church of Satan is a cult for rabid individualists, then indeed, Satan is the perfect symbol. As for the pissing off the Christians bit, it is in the nature of rabid individualism to use the offense of others to springboard off of. Aleister Crowley is another notable example of the same philosophy. By adopting the social symbol for evil, one makes a clear statement of rejection of society and its constraints.

Orange

You know Orange, I can't really tell if your post is pro-Satanism, or anti-Satanism...

Because you reiterated the popular myth of the devil's origin as fact, I think you most likly are not pro-Satanism. (Even though Satanism has very little to do with the Satan of Christian mythology)

Satanism does not have an occult element to it. It is pretty much a humanist philosophy, I would even balk at calling it a "religion".

Now Crowley is another beast altogether. A ritual magician who started off in Golden Dawn, and moved on doing his own thing.

Is making a new religion/religious facimile truly rejection of society's constraints?

It seems more like a change to fit the desires of the society, and remove some of the burdens that society has placed upon itself.

-jb

The name "Satanism" was such a beautiful marketing ploy because it played on the fears of the fundamentalists. Rather than reading the book, and finding out what LaVey was actually trying to say, they automatically assumed it was another magic tome like the one by Crowley. As a result, everywhere you went in the US, people were denouncing the book. It was railed at from the pulpits, it was slandered in the news media, etc. This only fires the curiousity of the free-thinker, with the ultimate result being that the Satanic Bible became an international best seller. LaVey got his message across, and laughed all the way to the bank.

"People will believe any lie, either because they want it to be true, or because they fear that it may be true." - Wizard's First Rule, Terry Goodkind

Another guy who flew to high was Ikaros. He flew to close to the sun and his wings melted. Now, whats to become of us if we try to pull the same trick? Humans don't even have wings!

I'm not trying to be boring, saying that we should face the facts and get in the line. But how can anyone think that he can be "his own god"? By any definition a god is something that is very unhuman. Is it really that horrible to be a man? We must learn that we depend on each other. Egoism is trying to like oneself so much that it doesn't matter what others think of you. In the end though, humans need love from one and other, it's that simple. Love, we can not give and take, we must give and recieve. If "being your own god" means taking controle of your own life, then its the "taking" that is wrong. I think we must lose ourselves and we will "recieve" controle of our lives. That is my belief.

At least Icarus got there under his own power. When a man puts everything in the hands of a "higher power" (god or otherwise) he excuses himself from personal responsibility.

A god can be many things to many people. Personaly I am a polytheist, and my gods are not the creator of the universe. They are knowable, and each has their own personality. They are not easily defined by category as is seen in the Greco-Roman pantheon, but each god has many attributes and interests, as any person would.

Being your own god means being wholly responsible for yourself and not surrendering anything to an unknowable higher power. Its not an egoist attitude, its a responsible one. It is the attitude of not blaming anyone or anything else for your actions or inactions. It is defining your own moral code instead of having one dictated to you. It is taking responsibility to securing for yourself what you need and what you want.

I think that what you say is one of the most common misunderstandings of true christianity. We must all answer for our own actions. If someone thinks that he can do so by pointing at a book or such, that person has a problem. On the other hand we must all realise that sometimes we do things that are wrong, we hurt people, others or ourselves. One must keep in mind that taking responsability for your actions does not mean never to be regretful.

What you say about moral is very Nietzsche and very interesting. Dictated moral is wrong if it is not understood by those who practice it. I see no fault in beeing openminded to oldfashioned wisdom. The important thing is that you believe in the morals you practice and know why. But I do think that different ethics can be more or less good. In my opinion ethics can't be based on egoism.

"true" christianity? I've seen more "true" christianities than you've seen loaves of sliced bread.... you might want to rephrase this as "my christianity" if you don't want to be guilty of a hugely self-centered world view...

And Egoism is a reasonably basis for ethics. I don't kill people because it would get me into jail, and because it would do me no good. I'm happy to admit that deep down I'm completely selfish. However, I still buy my round at the pub, occasionally give a token gesture to beggars, buy a red nose, and otherwise behave in a socially acceptable manner.

You may wish to look into Game Theory and Hume's Kin Predicate, should you want to explore the rock hard scientific basis to ethical egoism. Memetics explains the few instances of "altruistic" behaviour that the preceding two can't.

When I talk about taking personal responsibility, it encompasses the tendancy of many Christians (I'll leave it to the individual as to if they are "true" or not) to give their God credit for something that was not hir doing. (Albeit there could be a line of reasoning that God is responsible for all actions given the assumption that God created the universe and all possibilities and actions in said univerese are a direct result of creation, but I digress...)

The platitude "It's God's Will" is the prime example of many Christians and others not taking personal responsibility for their actions and inactions. Countless times I have seen or heard of accidents where people have died due to human error, and people consoling the bereaved with platitudes of "It was God's will" or "It was his time to go". Bullshit. They can't face the fact that it was people doing stupid things that lead to these deaths, and they put it in the lap of God.

This is a total shirking of personal responsibility.

There is also another example where they give glory to God for all that is percieved to be "good" in their life, and take blame themselves for all the mistakes made and that which is percieved as "bad". If this is not co-dependant behaivior, its damn close, and unhealthy either way. To deny one's own self worth in my opinion is an insult to your Creator. Its not humility, its selling yourself short.

I love that last line of yours, "an insult to your creator". I totaly agree!

Now when you talk about personal responsability, you give an example where christians releave others from their personal responsability. I dont think there are many christians who upon making a human error themselves, resulting in someones death, would call that "God's will". On the other hand, I dont want to stand up for all christians in this matter. There are bad guys everywhere.

Furthermore I would like to say that the human soul is priceless, I wouldn't sell myself at all. I know my value and through that I know everybody elses value too. There is an interesting question to ask here: Where does ones value come from? I know that everybody would not agree that we all have the same value (espesialy not in this forum).

Who is it that value us? It's not the guy I work for, he values what I can DO, not who I AM. Who values me for who I AM? Answer: Those who love me. Only those who love asks for who we ARE.

You are right, I shouldn't claim to be able to define somthing like christianiy. Nevertheless, I'd still say that is "true christianity" if you asked me.

But is there really such a thing as rock-solid science? To Hume, it was the biggest of mysteries how we could ever know anything. I'm sure that science can explain altruistic behaviour and still be able to say that all we care about is ourselves. But another answer to altruistic behaviour is that we simply care.

Sorry - I should have been more clear. What I meant was that the theoretical basis is fairly well understood, and heavily researched. In the same way as I might say that our local football team has a rock solid defence.

That doesn't mean it's true - but I was replying to your post where you said Ethics *cannot* be based on Egoism. Well it *can*. It may may be that people get their ethics from some other place, such as a divine being, but it *may* be the case that they get them from enlightened self-interest. Give the scientists more money, and they'll give you more evidence...

If this was the case, then I don't think that "ethics" is the proper word for it. Or at least we must say that we have ethics in the same way that a cow has ethics (no offence, all cows). I dont know how "ethics" is defined, but in my opinion it has do with acting in a higher cause.

In the end, it comes down to what we think that we are. Are we
animals? Are we what we do? Are we that we experience? And on and on and on...

Ethics is, as I was taught it, the attempt to answer the question "how should we act". You might act to minimise suffering, to further the greater glory of God, or just to make yourself happy. Any creature that lacks self-awareness cannot have a concept of ethics, because it cannot consider that question, which probably rules out cows, but possibly not other non-human animals.

The way I see it, "selfishness" makes me act ethically, and serve the "higher cause" of society, at least the majority of the time.