Where we are is probably a halfway house for the platonic self (some people do have them, I believe, but many don't) and the corpse itself, half alive, half dead. I like how you mention the Platonic form stuff though.

What are the criteria you use to deem if someone has a "self" or not? And if they don't, what then? Are they merely empty vessels with no inner monologue or something? (Also, I do not pose either of these questions in a condescending way - I'm very interested in this stuff and philosophy too, as you've noticed.)

I am now wondering what constitutes as a funny hat

I personally dont like anything where you have to join things or do things or there's a hierarchy. I also dont like anything that has 'secrets' and this kind of thing, or excludes people or puts behavioural pressure on people. So all forms of religion are disappointing on a micro level beyond a mild christianity, or a mild islam (is it even possible), or animisms of asian or european kinds....

On a large scale though, things are much worse with everyone having their own internet based worldview, and people reading stuff out of their league etc, and I've been guilty of this also. It was better when there was a solid religious structure in society, and people could drop in or out depending on their spiritual needs, even if there was a social cost to it all. Moreover it seems better to tend towards some exit to this world, to a better world, and I would be suspicious of people who say they really love this world or how life is.

On the mystical and philosophical underpinnings of satanism, I'd love to hear from people. I've known a lot of atheists and satanists and haven't thought they were any better than a common or garden christian. Or even that different really.

That's an issue. Wherever humans congregate, there's going to be a hierarchy. The only thing that varies in that regard is whether it's explicitly or tacitly determined.



Just called out the entire metal subculture in one sentence! Fair critique, too.



This part is a mixed bag for me: I totally agree that everyone having their own internet-enabled viewpoints is a recipe for chaos - where there were once a handful of religions in a given region, there are now an large amount. I don't know if I agree with the "things were better when religion was fundamental to society": every era in which religion has played a substantial role in society, there have been drastic (and even deadly) consequences for supposed "heresy." And even if that wasn't the case, we can't go back now.

I'd urge you to change your mind on this stance about a "better world through religion." I'm not saying a better world doesn't exist, only that I don't think organized religion is a path to it. A better world can only be gained by and for yourself. That's honestly what I think the purpose of life is: do all you can to make your life as good as it can possibly be through effort toward your self assigned goals. Any indulgence in herd-salvation is an exercise in futility (ha!).

Well I'm not strictly making that argument. It's more like inducting the argument from its opposite. I prefer some kind of mix of christianity and european primal mythology, but the underpinning of fixing ourselves first, I agree with you. Problem being- it's exhausting, ambiguous, and too open to people developing self-serving worldviews that they can then go onto fullfil under their own criteria. Not that it matters really; all this stuff is ultimately just something to do while you're alive.

I'm only discussing this stuff because the thread came up, and with the benefit of age all the issues become much closer, with death. Perhaps someone could start a thread on what the Internet has done to the human condition over the last 25 years. The Internet itself has a Satanic hallmark, maybe a test we didn't recognise. I just reviewed a Mactatus album, and in so doing I realise just how tenuous my own grasp on goodness and decency is. I enjoy music that normal people would find pretty out of bounds, where is the ethical reflection about what being an extreme music fan even means? In any event, for a thread I dropped into just to pass some time, the level is quite high, and I consider myself nicely humbled by the thoughtfulness of the responses.

I'm aware my comments about hierarchies and funny hats etc are deliberately naive. I know humans pretty much cream themselves on gossip, bullying, brainwashing, uniforms, rituals, secrets, and probably that won't change. I'd like to see how metal fans intermingle rebellion, individualism, otherness, with the real-world rank conformity, nerdism, and ethical slipperyness of the metal community...

I would genuinely love metal to grow up and become wise and self aware and find a decent face to present to the world, but it hasn't happened yet, and this is upsetting to me for reason, though I probably shouldn't care. It feels like a missed opportunity to bring a new coherent voice to the world, one with something to say.

As much as I dislike the majority of Christians I've met, the satanists and atheists aren't any more honest, in my experience over the years. anyway, I'm just some dickhead writing pointless reviews, and nothing I think really matters that much.

I love that I logged in to find this on the forums ❤

I actually identify & as a theistic Satanist, meaning that I idolize (or 'worship', if you prefer), Satan/Lucifer, primarily, as a being who brings awareness and knowledge, and as the protoype of rebellion and nonconformity. It's sort of gnostic, but I view the common conception of 'God' as -actually- evil. I've never read LaVey, but I grew up Catholic, and I was fairly religious up until somewhat recently. I thought God was something good, in the utilitarian way (not morally), but there is the underlying sensation that not only is one is never good enough for God, but that God is sort of a loser, and a piece of shit. I also find Jesus, or Yoshi, as I like to call him, to be an absolute fraud and grifter. If Yoshi were alive today, he'd probably on Instagram/Xitter selling crystals, self-help substacks, & reiki sessions.

My Satanism is centered on rejection and exclusion. I reject God, I reject blind obedience, I reject... most things, if I'm being quite honest!

I believe Satan to be the ultimate rejector, in addition to being the ultimate temptation. Humanity, ultimately, is nothing more than minimally aware and highly delusional bacteria. Though 'God' would like to have us believe in our divinity and specialness, we truly are abominations. Yet, that's no cause for guilt- we should embrace the fact we're snivelling apes, rather than denying it and trying to pretend we're something else. While God wants us to deny our humanity, our bodies, this world, Satan wants us to embrace it, to relish in it, to become mini-Gods ourselves. Rather than writhe in the mud like worms, we have the intellect to build monuments out of ash. And we should.

Satan, however, will try to get the worst out of humanity, as proof to God that his creation truly is vile shit. I love Satan for unmasking this truth, and for giving us the chance to show that we actually can be 'good', freely, not through force, restriction, and coercion, as God likes, but through our own Godlike-awareness and freedom of choice.

As far as hell, I would rather go to hell than be imprisoned in heaven, on the simple basis that heaven is for the ignorant. Though heaven and hell are comical ideas, it's a vehicle of nihilism, greed and all sorts of heinous worldviews to perpetuate that the 'good' should luxuriate in calm serenity, while the wicked are being tortured for eternity (class warfare never looked so cute tbh). Torture doesn't work, neither on earth nor in any other dimension. Ignorance comes into play with the delusion that one could ever possibly be morally good while resting, as others are being literally tormented without rehabilitation.



Sadly, to be put on the suspect list of this user, I do love this world very much. I think it's resentment and avoidance of the brutality and bizarreness of this world that has, surprisingly enough, alienated us from it. If we loved this world, we would never have treated it so poorly, used it up so thoroughly, treated it as a stepping stone to some better, far off future. It's our lack of love and gratitude for this world, and desire for a better one (heaven, utopia, ethnostates), that causes so much pain and anguish. I also reject the idea that it was 'better before,' which is also a god-meme, as it parallels the idea that 'Humanity was Better Before the Fall.' I reject this notion entirely. Things have always been equally as awful and as good as they are right now.

Metal fits in perfectly with Satanism, as metal is also a rejection, but of a lighter sort that rejections the mainstream of pop ad-friendly easily digestable jingles. Satanism and metal are both "anti-" and incredibly self-alienating labels that one consciously chooses to engage with or identify as. Loving metal or being a Satanist, both will get you ostracized and thrown in with a group of 'outcasts.' Though, of course, Satanism is more troubling to the average person than metal music.

Sorry for textwall, but I could definitely go on! ⛧⛧⛧
❤

While I consider myself an Atheist first, and a Satanist secondly, I have to agree with a lot of what you've said. This world is definitely a fucked up place, it always has been, and always will be. I also reject a lot of things people consider "normal", like the belief in an all powerful creator that put us all here, but has zero interaction with its own creations.

There's nothing fucking special about us(the human race), we're totally insignificant, and don't even register in the timeline of the universe. We're less than a speck of dust.
I'd believe H.P. Lovecraft's writings on the origins of our species first, that we're a product of the Great Old Ones, before believing in a loving, caring, creator god.

Being an Atheist can definitely be the same as being a fan of extreme metal music. Lot's of "normal" people are fans of mainstream metal music( Metallica, AC/DC, Slipknot, etc), but fans of black/death metal are definitely not normal.
We live for this music, we listen to it constantly, we wear the shirts, we grow our hair, become heavily tattooed, reject religion and its teachings. We are outcasts, but that's okay.

I've been a diehard metal fan for a very long time, I wear a concert shirt every day of the year, haven't cut my hair short in spite of going bald before I was 30(I look like the bass player in WATAIN), and am heavily tattooed, yet I was normal enough to work 40-50 hours a week for over 30 years before having to retire.

My point is(sorry for the long response), I don't want anyone telling me how I have to live my life, what I have to believe, who I can or can't marry, or what I'm allowed to get enjoyment out of. I fucking love black metal, and have chosen(a very long time ago) to be a metalhead. I've also chosen to reject any/all gods and am an Atheist. It's taken decades for my family to realize that I'm not going to change and have finally accepted it. Fuck the christian god, and all of its followers.

HAIL SATAN.

there is a lot of very considered responses here, and I thank everyone who bothered to reply. it's not even my thread, but nonetheless I find it interesting to hear from other people why they believe what they do.

Despite being very misanthropic, and anti-natalist, I wouldn't consider humanity to be a pond of irredeemable scum, a pointless bacterial mess. Biological life has huge potential, and biological sentience has aspects to it that you can't get from AI, from light-beings, from bio-robots, from cyborgs.

In fact, I don't think it'd actually even take that much to turn things around in a better direction; that's the tragedy of it all.

I mentioned earlier the Catholic-Satanist feedback loop, and how actually they have a lot in common. Are there many people who move from Protestantism to Satanism? Is Hinduism a strong mix of animism and Satanism? I'd love to hear if anyone has moved from anything except Catholicism to Satanism?

Have any former Catholics realised that they have abandoned one thing for basically the same thing?

anyway, Satanism and Atheism seem like really strong positions to take, and much more extreme than my mix of christianity and european animism, but maybe thats just a lack of commitment on my part.

I personally don't think humanity is irredeemable. Pointless? Maybe. Though we might be bacteria, that doesn't mean we aren't clever bacteria... Just because we're monkeys, doesn't mean we can't do exceptional things. But I do dislike anthropocentrism as a idea, which is fairly nihilistic, and a force for destruction in an ignorant way. It's an idea that separates us from nature and positions humanity outside of it. It's egocentric narcissism to believe we're more valuable or fundementally different from a colony of ants.

Why are you anti-natalist is you don't hate humanity? And how can you be anti-natalist if you believe in the potential of humanity? There's a great quote from The Last Messiah where Satan, in contrast to God, says, "Be infertile and let the earth be silent after ye." Very anti-natalist eco-fascist of him!

I'm aware of some Satanic/left hand Hindu demons and cults, such as Kali, but I'd also love to hear from others who came from other religious backgrounds. I dabbled in Buddhism for a while, but found the same kind of rejection of life in that system as well. I think Xtianity, though, has an explicit Satanic undertone with its absolute binary, which is perhaps why many become Satanists to escape it and part of the feedback loop you mention.

However, it's presumptuous to claim that I've traded worshipping God for venerating Satan. They're two diametrically oppposed symbols. Especially Catholicism, with its guilt, repentance, fasting, restrictions, celibacy, asceticism- rejection of the material body, and demonization of the world, etc. God and Satan neither demand nor represent the same things, at all.

There's no God or Satan, nor angels and demons; there is only YOU and your mind, your consciousness and your actions. The way you perceive the world is the way you create it! And when you strip down everything, there is nothing but mere and pure consciousness. We're all but energy, embodied in this body, in this form, and the universe is vast, endless pool of energy. Energy always comes first, then there is matter, slowly turning back to energy...

Congrats you’ve won the thread. This is pretty much the consensus of existentialism condensed into one paragraph. However, it represents only the first step: the real question is “how best to direct that energy, that consciousness, and those actions?”

The power of human will! There is no greater force than that of human will. Our thoughts are actually energy, capable of creating and empowering almost everything. Sadly, we are often overpowered by our own ego, our own fears and desires so we chose to walk the selfish path, rarely thinking of investing in our own environment's good-being. By increasing the "wealth and health" of our own environment, we increase the quality of living for all, thus, increasing quality of our own's life. The more you invest, the more you gain. But, what will you invest? Or will you take instead?

When you come to think about it, our EGO is the only real obstacle stopping us from reaching higher potential.

@Xymosys

I’ve said earlier on this thread that I believe that ultimately we are (or at the very least, I am) here to elevate the mind and body; to come as close as possible to embodying our potential. This means striving for a healthy medium - balancing health with chasing vanity; balancing wisdom with knowledge; and so on.

As much as we like to intellectualize our ways around it, I find that certain behaviors and stimuli generally effect us in a negative or positive way given our (general) neurochemistry. For a basic example, take exercise: does it feel good in the moment? Often no. But does it have good residual effects? Overwhelmingly yes.

I don’t believe happiness is an end in of itself to strive for - rather, it’s the byproduct of effort and struggle in the attainment of our self selected goals. These goals should ideally be chosen in accordance to whether or not they feed and elevate our “vitality.” This selection method should help one bypass hedonistic/approval seeking paths and disproportionally reap the profits of the action for ourself with minimal detriment in the process. That’s what I believe the best use of our energy lies in.

I don’t agree with your idea of the ego being an obstacle to this, though. If anything, it’s the id that is the saboteur, as it’s the one which values immediate pleasure over long term goals, and is the one that tries to intellectualize us away from doing what we should be doing “because it’s hard.”

this is somewhat convincing, but I don't think everything is a mirror of man's soul, a drama of our own minds. I think that's certainly a mid-level assessment, but I suspect there are as many levels beyond that as below.

I'd also ask mr censoria to review his last paragraph. If you can't see that everything Satanism offers is exactly an inversion of what Catholicism offers, and is therefore indistinguishable from it, then I can't help you, not that you asked for help.

I still think technology as the devil, is an under-visited argument, and if I had some books about it, I'd love to learn how different the Indian blue gods are from the white and red of Christian Europeans.

Test this power against the force of gravity.

All of this talk about "stripping everything down" so you end up with a fairy tale of the supreme creative power of "consciousness" is a nice imaginative exercise, and it's not even adhered to seriously by the most passionate proponent in their life. No wonder, because if taken not as make-believe and potentially interesting play, it's clear that it is nonsense.


Do you also think taking a left turn instead of a right turn leads you to the same place?

What is the binary in Christianity? Good and evil? That's what most preachers would tell you, but it's not what many Christians believe. If you've heard of the holy trinity, well the Son is part of it, and God has only one Son. No binary. Any binary we see like good/evil, heaven/hell or a distinct and separate God apart from us is not part of reality but is only in our own perception.

You're totally right that Satanism is an escape from Christianity, but it's only an interpretation of Christianity and one I believe is a wrong one. At the very least it's not what Jesus taught, and I get the same impression from most of what's in the Garden of Eden parable in Genesis that this was its original meaning.

I'm with you on Buddhism, it is as I see it a rejection of life although I don't blame them for not seeing any value in life as it's been lived since the Buddha's time. I've been tempted to want to just escape and live in solitude and contemplation many, many times. Part of my reluctance is due to having met a few Buddhists and suffice it to say they haven't exactly been as blissed out as the Buddha is depicted. I also know that if I did become an ascetic it would be as much an escape from the challenges of living in the world as it would be to become "enlightened".

Agreed. The lamppost my mind hadn't noticed before I walked into it agrees, too.

The concept of the Trinity is not only never mentioned anywhere in the earliest Christian texts but even the Bible itself details how the trinity is an interpolation. Furthermore if Christians actually read their Bible they would know that the character of Yeshuah ben Josepf (Jesus) always only ever referred to himself as being different from and subordinate to יהוה‎ or Yud-He Vad-He ( Yahweh ). He even speaks about not knowing what only Yahweh knows, which would be literally impossible if they were the same individual in any manner.The ONLY thing that Satanism 'interprets' from Christianity is the characters name of Satan. This however is not all that relevant since the Christian Devil ( Satan ) is an appropriation of the Persian character اهرِمن ( Ahrimanes the opposer ), which is the main adversary to Ahura Mazda, the highest deity of Zoroastrianism.

Perhaps you should read up on these religions before stating incorrect terms for them. Just a thought...Hinduism is the oldest religion in continuous practice and predates by millennia even the most ancient character(s) who would one day metamorphose into Satan.As a former Catholic who has studied comparative religions and their languages for many years I feel qualified to say that the two are in no way the same thing. AT ALL.

I have no doubt he felt that way but could you give a source to where he expresses this sentiment? For future reference

It's been many years, but I believe this was stated in one (or both) of the books authored by Blanch Barton in the early 90s: "The Church of Satan" and "The Secret Life Of A Satanist".

This "argument" you've put forth against the power of the human reminds me a lot of the low effort attempt to discard Stoic philosophy by saying "Oh, well, you can't think your way around the pain that you'd feel if I hit you!!"; it reflects either an unwillingness to actually engage with the ideas put forward or a fundamental misunderstanding of them. No shit the human will alone can't (permanently) triumph over gravity.

The very computer you typed that message on was once a dream of someone who then, powered by their intelligence, took steps to make the machine a reality in their lifetime or in the future. As much as I disagree with some of Schopenhauer, one of the things he got right (and one of the most optimistic views philosophy has to offer) is the observation that the world is will made physical: - every invention was at one point just a thought in someone's mind. Nietzsche took that and rebranded it as "the will to power."

The basic point Xymoxys was pointing out is that, roughly: consciousness brings thought -> thought brings action -> focused action brings results that either benefit or harm the individual based on intent and available knowledge at the moment of action -> this phenomenon forms the basis of all of our lives. Therein lies the profound power of the will: the way in which you choose to direct it has dynamic effects over time.

But, actually, your post does beg an interesting question: if all that exists in our human sphere of life and thought is not the product of a composite of our wills, where does that basic creative impulse come from?

Except.. we don't choose to direct it. This "Will" is transcendent, unseen and unknowable, and what we think of as individual, "human will" is essentially powerless and dictated by collective forces which are basically a philosophical stand-in for God's Will.

If there's another reason Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are so big amongst the same metal crowd which disavows God, I'm not seeing it.

Out of curiosity, if something is unknowable, how can you know it exists? It is unknowable, after all.

I'm rusty on my Schopenhauer, but "optimistic" would've been the last adjective I'd associate with him. Could you elaborate on that, Nocturnal_Evil?



I think it depends on how strictly you define "knowledge."

In the tradition started by Descartes, the first and only proposition of which each of us can be absolutely certain is "I exist" - this proposition is impossible to even question (since doing so would imply my existence as a questioner) - and all other knowledge requires this proposition as its foundation. Descartes has some sketchy maneuvers to deduce God's existence, along with the existence of material, mind-independent reality (the world we know through science and everyday experience), from the premise of his own existence. Pretty much no one, AFAIK, was persuaded by these maneuvers; but on the other hand, the idea that all knowledge proceeds from some foundation which is (1) maximally certain, more-or-less impervious to doubt, and (2) related in some basic way to the individual mind, the self, the subject of conscious experience, or what-have-you - this idea was enormously influential, one of the defining characteristics of modern philosophy.

But what you find when you take the Cartesian position to its logical conclusion is that it's extremely, implausibly restrictive; if we accept it, then nearly everything we claim to know (in our unguarded moments) seems to actually fall entirely short of the standards of knowledge. (One way to bring this out is to say that "for all we know," each of us could be a disembodied brain floating in a vat of chemicals and induced by mad scientists to experience a simulated reality; this would render nearly everything we believe false - again, apart from the belief that we in some manner exist.)

So, long story short, I don't think anyone "really" operates from a strict Cartesian standpoint when it comes to deciding what qualifies as knowledge. And with the standards of knowledge thus "loosened," we can and do construct scientific (and other) theories which for all intents and purposes qualify as knowledge, not because they are absolutely indubitable, not because they are based on anything as immediately, vividly evident as my own conscious experience is to me - but instead because they are the "best available explanations." (They're not at odds with other accepted knowledge; they're simple and elegant and have predictive power; etc.)

I think Schopenhauer, for example, arrived at his view of the transcendent, unknowable Will (described above by Disembodied) through a process of "inference to the best explanation." He wouldn't have claimed to know it (by Descartes's standards), but he viewed it as the best available solution to the mystery of existence. (Somewhere I believe he uses the image of finally cracking a combination to a safe.)

Possibly a better, more relevant example of claiming to "know" about the unknowable could be found in quantum theory, with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and whatnot: If we know the exact position of a particle, then we cannot possibly know its exact momentum, and vice versa. (This is well outside my wheelhouse, though.)

Sorry, that was a lot, and rushed, but hopefully it's somewhat helpful.

Sure. I only meant for "optimistic" to be applied to his idea of "the will," not his work overall. The idea that the will, though "unknowable" and "beyond our control" can be harnessed to work for us or against us is a potentially liberating thought.



I don't agree with your first sentence. While we are genetically encoded with certain drives and instincts, we differ wildly in our methods when it comes to satiating those drives and managing those instincts. In that regard, we have at least partial control, and therein lies all the difference. It also happens to be (part of) the reason why people land in profoundly different circumstances over the course of life.

Thank you, I'll have a look in them to see if I can find it.

I was referring to Schopenhauer's views. It sounds like what you're saying is that we have will, which I think anyone would agree with. Whether that will is free is another thing. I know that I prefer chocolate over vanilla icecream but do I choose that preference? I have a particular way of replying to comments on this forum but do I choose those? Or are they just thoughts that appear in my mind, which I act upon (or not) according to the flow of more thoughts.

"The Secret Life..." should be easily accessible via Amazon or Ebay. As for "The COS", that may be tricky. I sold my copy on Ebay nearly two years ago for almost $500USD. It was long out of print and, if I recall correctly, was a limited run.

Whether, or not, you agree with LaVey or his idealogy, he was an interesting fellow, to be sure.

Everything is available online with the right resources.

I'm not a satanist - a long way away from that nowadays - but I appreciate LaVey. However, his followers are usually just as sheep like as the Christians they always seem to compare themselves with.

That's one of my biggest problems with satanism, too: a black sheep is still a sheep.



Ah, my mistake.

Same...and agreed.

satanism doesn't have any better answers. life still becomes empty over time, nothing works the right way, the cost of living, of life itself, is cripplingly high, and being dead is even worse.

Basically the goat equates water, so water was the suns parent and elder, one day somebody said, I’d rather start counting at the sun and be judge instead, so that’s how the goat becomes satan trying to forget something that predates your “divine authority” that your trying to eliminate not to blow your cover, the goat is “satan” because it was the sun gods parent and they said “well, I prefer to start counting at the sun “ and proceeded killing people until people were obliged with the whole homosexual pedophile military caste and such yeah, so satan, s, is the sound of single edge swords clashing, look at the rune, so Satan’s name is swords clashing against aten, which in turn also means his father(water/the goat) as of course he was creator god emperor in mortal flesh

My thing was I was an atheist, so satanism started off as funny to me I just liked the catchy music, I thought metal was doing the world a favour as people were “brainwashed”, then I started drinking with theistic satanist or bible based satanist, and one day it dawned on me to try to talk to satan, I concluded satan was real, which in turn made me become a Christian becuase it made me believe in god if in turn satan was real. For me a couple times I thought I could talk to god or at least get a sign for yes and no, a lot of people believe you can talk to god anytime you want, so I asked god I said God, will it always be ok, I get a yes” then I said god”are you satan? And also get a yeah, so . They say you can talk to god or anyone can talk to god but I beg to differ, a prayer answered yes, but talk? Unless of course satan is god(Mind you you’d be hard pressed talking to god to find something he isn’t aside from unholy, ask him if he’s evil, but is he unholy aparently that’s two different things. Never underestimate how much what goes through your head is like a form of prayer, y’know some people don’t use a Quige board and use their minds, so repeated messanging can put you under the influence, I think a lot of atheist take satanism too lightly, but really an average joe could tame a demon with a saints list so what’s the harm really? My attitude as a young atheist was definetly adversarial element, I liked adversarial energy

A lot of people looking for satan only end up finding Ba’al

A lot of people looking for satan only end up finding Ba’al(hedad) pointing to the whole notion of fiirst born sacrifice as being the same thing as hedad. So sometimes first born sacrifice stories can be hard to sort fact from fiction because that’s who ba’al names Ba’al and hedad’s loaded gun against who he accuses of being ba’al