A satanic navy

[Righ]

It's a good news night tonight. The Royal Navy has started crewing up with Satanists. Ann Widdecombe's "Satanism is wrong." reads like something out of South Park. Now we only have to see whether a coalition of the US forces of light and the UK forces of darkness can survive.

We will of course gloss over the distinction between worshippers of a Christian devil and those who embrace a pre-Christian life-principle in pursuit of either entertainment or moral indignation. Go.

[Margalis]

It's all about the pleasure domes!

[stray]

He said: "I then read more and more and came to realise I'd always been a Satanist, just simply never knew."

I always find it funny when people say this. I think a lot of people (non-Christian and Christian alike) would probably qualify as "Satanist", at least by LeVey's definition...Which is basically the same self serving philosophy Nietzsche advocated. That LaVey built a religion out of it, especially one stemmed from a fixation on Christian themes and imagery, probably makes Nietzsche roll over in his grave (Of course, Nietzsche didn't believe in that sort of thing either, heh).

Most people don't need religion or rituals to tell them to follow their own ego's, and it just shows how feeble minded "Satanists" really are. The exact opposite of what they proclaim to be.

Anyways...I doubt this guy will last long. Does the British Navy have it's own version of the Ether Bunny? If so, I'm sure he'll be paying this guy a visit.

[Calantus]

Yeah... why would you need a religion to tell you to do whatever the hell you want?

As far as worshipping satan in the navy, I can't see anything wrong with it provided he doesn't do anything illegal during them. But then I don't believe it means anything either.

[Roac]

It's a good news night tonight. The Royal Navy has started crewing up with Satanists. Ann Widdecombe's "Satanism is wrong." reads like something out of South Park. Now we only have to see whether a coalition of the US forces of light and the UK forces of darkness can survive.

We will of course gloss over the distinction between worshippers of a Christian devil and those who embrace a pre-Christian life-principle in pursuit of either entertainment or moral indignation. Go.

LaVey Satanism = heidonism, with some trappings.  That's about it.  It's just a better codified description of what happens when you take Prisoner's Delima equivalent situations and boil them down to the logical conclusions; you gain most when everyone else suffers.

[Murgos]

I'm pretty sure you can claim 'Satanist' as your religion in the US military.

Though, technically, isn't satanism really just a branch of Christianity?

[Polysorbate80]

But will the Satanists be able to co-exist with the cannibals?  And if not, who wins...?

[Margalis]

Satanists and Satan-worshippers are two different things.

[Calantus]

Satanists and Satan-worshippers are two different things.

The whole world is crazy.

[geldonyetich]

A self-proclaimed Satan-worshipping High Schooler stole my D&D Book ruleset when I was a kid.   Aside from that, my experience with Satanists is nil.  I guess that's when you turn to the Wikipedia.    Hmm, not so cut and dry, it seems.

Personally, I think I'd pick a Wiccan over a Satanist to man my Battleships, but I might be a bit bitter about my lost D&D Book ruleset.   Yet, I recognize that the little snot who snagged my ancient RPG gear was probably just a hedonistic twat who had nothing to do with the formal religion.

As for me, I've already called myself an Agnostic Philosopher, which attracted much more eyebrow raising than it truly deserves - it basically just says I'm uncommitted but observing.  Christianity never interested me, I never cared much for that fire and brimstone stuff, I prefer to do what's right because I rationally understand the neccessity, not because if I don't I'll get Satan's pitchfork in my arse.   Apparently that makes me Anti-Christian in some people's book, but I think it just depends on how the Christianity is taught.    I'm considering taking up Buddhism, which apparently makes me a hippy.

[Roac]

Though, technically, isn't satanism really just a branch of Christianity?

It depends which Satanism you're talking about.  With LaVey's version, no.  Really, LaVey's version of Satamism is the logical consequence of athiesm.  They don't worship anything but the self.  From a Christian pov, the worship of God vs Self is the main conflict taking place through the ages; sin is not following God's commandments because of selfish desire.  Probably to be part sensationalism (he's a troll!), and part as a play on that belief, LaVey coined his belief Satanism.

There are of course some people who claim to literally worship Satan, although unlike LaVey, that view completely defies anything rational.  It is beyond me why anyone would want to, or claim to, worship a spiritual being whose primary desire is to destroy your eternal soul for its own gleeful spite toward God.  Worship of the Greek gods makes more sense.

[UD_Delt]

There are of course some people who claim to literally worship Satan, although unlike LaVey, that view completely defies anything rational.  It is beyond me why anyone would want to, or claim to, worship a spiritual being whose primary desire is to destroy your eternal soul for its own gleeful spite toward God.  

Mental illness?

http://www.seansellers.com/new_page_2.htm

Actually an interesting site to read through if you're bored and have never heard of Sean Sellers.

[Roac]

That would count I guess, but mental illness would be beyond me too.  I mean, I can recite the symptoms and such, but nothing I can relate to.  Probably a good thing.

[personman]

It is beyond me why anyone would want to, or claim to, worship a spiritual being whose primary desire is to destroy your eternal soul for its own gleeful spite toward God.

Short term power and unrestricted hedonism, and the tease that just maybe they'll be promoted to such power for eternity.

Pretty much the classic draw of any religion really - all those others are bad but play your cards right and you will be exalted.

[Dark Vengeance]

I'm considering taking up Buddhism, which apparently makes me a hippy.

Yeah, I can see where people might confuse these folks:


With these folks:


Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[AOFanboi]

Really, LaVey's version of Satamism is the logical consequence of athiesm.

You must be Christian: They always misspell atheist that way.

They don't worship anything but the self.

How is that necessarily atheist? Does the absence of a belief in gods automatically turn into self-worship? Are the humanists, buddhists or followers of other belief systems sans deity necessarily more self absorbed than, say, a TV evangelist amassing riches despite the Biblical words against doing just that?

Plus, atheism is non-belief in just one more god than the Christians. Come on, you're nearly there, might as well take the last step - you already non-believe in hundreds of gods. :)

Hm, that gave me an idea for a T-shirt...

Christian: does not believe in X gods.
Atheist:  does not believe in X + 1 gods.

Conclusion: A Christian is an atheist for large values of X.

Perhaps with the famous "fish with legs" below for effect.

[personman]

Yeah, I can see where people might confuse these folks:

Why choose when you can be both.

[sidereal]

Conclusion: A Christian is an atheist for large values of X.

Given that Hindus alone drive X up to at least 330 million,  X seems sufficiently large.

[geldonyetich]

I was referring more to the Wikipedia's reference about how 1960-1970s hippy generation was one that was quick to look to it for gaining enlightenment (as well as certain less legal means).

Still, those hippys may have been on to something.   Buddhism is relatively mainstream, so far as world population is concerned at #5, but still only about a fifth the size of Christianity.

[stray]

Hm, that gave me an idea for a T-shirt...

Christian: does not believe in X gods.
Atheist: does not believe in X + 1 gods.

Conclusion: A Christian is an atheist for large values of X.

Be careful wearing it though. That shirt would make you look more like a dork than it would an atheist.

[Samwise]

Christianity never interested me, I never cared much for that fire and brimstone stuff, I prefer to do what's right because I rationally understand the neccessity, not because if I don't I'll get Satan's pitchfork in my arse.

With all due respect to the Christians who you've apparently discussed this issue with, the only Christians who think like that are the ones whose theological development ended at the age of seven.

[Roac]

You must be Christian: They always misspell atheist that way.

I'm a comp sci major who can't spell, and who purposefully went that track to avoid any English classes beyond 101/102.  You're like the third person in a month to note that.

How is that necessarily atheist? Does the absence of a belief in gods automatically turn into self-worship?

Self-worship doesn't mean you go to the Temple Of The Self, in order to tithe to the self, just that the self is the center of your universe.  Without a diety to define existance for you, the only real reason left to live is for yourself.  Without an afterlife, the only thing you have is, well, what you have.  To paraphrase Trump (I think he summed up this view well), "I believe when you die, that's it, so you have to live to have fun".  You could try to argue that self-denial was an alternate route, but I think that is a very strict minority.

Plus, atheism is non-belief in just one more god than the Christians.

Any belief - atheism, Christianity (whatever branch), Buddhism, etc are beliefs that affirm their view of reality against all others.  Nice pun, but it's non-descriptive.

Are the humanists, buddhists or followers of other belief systems sans deity necessarily more self absorbed than, say, a TV evangelist amassing riches despite the Biblical words against doing just that?

Buddhists do worship a god; The Buddha.  There were/are actually many Buddhas, but when referencing "The" Buddha, it's usually referencing  Siddhartha Gautama, a historical person.  Worship of Buddha and, depending on which branch of Buddhsim one follows, other beings, isn't the same nature as that of Christian worship.  However, any polytheistic belief follower cannot worship in the same sense that a monotheistic follower can (monotheism is trademarked with the God being The Creator, and worship for that reason; polytheistic beliefs do not have a single omnipotent creator).  

Worship here is given because the gods are extremely wise; think Einstein times ten thousand, and with a mountainous helping of grok for all of it.  Whether they are self-worshipping or deity worshipping is a matter of where they are on the path of Enlightenment; it would seem to be the case that those who are Enlightened are indeed involved in self-worship.  For them, they understand that Enlightenment of all beings is their purpose, to include themselves.  For the worshippers, they are likely focused on deity worship, since they have not gained enough wisdom to take the universe into their own hands.  That is, Enlightened beings can look to themselves for wisdom, while most people must look to the Enlightened for wisdom.

Far as Humanists go, it is a very broad category that includes both religious and non-religious people.  If you refer to secular humanism, yes, they would be included in self-worship, since that belief system involves the moral advancement of the self, with the self being the source of the guidelines.  That is, such people occupy a similar, but much smaller, role as Buddhas.

[sidereal]

Buddhists do worship a god; The Buddha.

Que?
Have you discussed this with a Buddhist?
If 'god' signifies an omnipotent creator being, then no.  Neither the traditional nor modern Buddhist cosmologies support that.  If you mean it as a general term for supernatural beings that are glorified and looked to for wisdom, then that's a fair description of many strains of Mahayana Buddhism, particularly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land">Pure Land, but it's certainly not a universal property of Buddhism.  Most of the Theravada world and particularly Zen adherents would find the idea kind of silly.  I'm not down with the Vajrayana, so I'm not sure how they feel.  But the Dalai Lama certainly doesn't strike me as particularly theistic, and the local Tibetan Buddhist temples don't come off that way either, so I think it's safe to say they wouldn't find it a fair description either.

[Roac]

If 'god' signifies an omnipotent creator being, then no.

Read entire posts before replying.

However, any polytheistic belief follower cannot worship in the same sense that a monotheistic follower can (monotheism is trademarked with the God being The Creator, and worship for that reason; polytheistic beliefs do not have a single omnipotent creator).

The entire meaning of 'god' is differnet for a polytheistic belief system than for a monotheistic one.  Omnipotence is void with polytheism, which means the defining characteristic of deity is not Creator God, but instead "uber being" (although some may claim Enlightenment is omniscience, it becomes a point of splitting hairs over terms).  Without the same type of god to address, the nature of worship will also be different.  I do feel Christianity and Buddhist worship are similar in a broad sense; the specific rituals are different (even internal to both beliefs).  The main differences revolve around the attitude one takes towards a Creator God and a set of gods, which includes the Buddha.  

Have you discussed this with a Buddhist?

Yes.  Have also had the opportunity to talk with Buddhist monks (from the US - no Tibbetan monks, etc), although about Buddhism in general and not about this subject in particular.  I maintain that some of the meditative practices are broadly similar to Christian worship, particularly Catholic worship which can often be medatative.  The accounts of some Catholic saints, about how they achieved sainthood, is strikingly similar to many Buddhist descriptions of Enlightenment.

But the Dalai Lama certainly doesn't strike me as particularly theistic

Yes, he is, extremely so.  Not in the sense that a Christian Prodestant may think, but acceptance of Buddha achieving Enlightenment, and the spiritual realm that includes it, is defined as a theistic belief.  Or to put it differently, Buddhism is included in the umbrella of theism.  I think you're confusing western Prodestant ideas of worship and theism with what those terms mean outside specific contexts.

[sidereal]

The entire meaning of 'god' is differnet for a polytheistic belief system than for a monotheistic one.

I agree with that, but the question here is whether Gautama Buddha qualifies as a god by either definition.  I admit I focused too much on the monotheistic version in my first reply, but for a substantial number of Buddhists, he does not qualify for the other version either.  Buddhism is not exclusive with other strains of theism or with atheism, and in fact encompasses them.  The basic idea is that the Buddhist cosmology includes polytheistic gods, if you believe in them, and that they are in their own particular place on the wheel of dharma.  Buddha jumped off the wheel completely.  Again, this isn't universal.  A good number of Mahayana Buddhists treat the Buddha for all intents and purposes as a god.

I maintain that some of the meditative practices are broadly similar to Christian worship, particularly Catholic worship which can often be medatative.

I'd argue that that confuses the physical characteristics for the mental processes and the intent.  Yes, in both cases you sit quietly and clear your mind.  In the case of prayer, this is done with the desire to form communion with the divine grace of God, and thought is focused on God and on the self as a vessel for divine grace.  This is vastly different from Buddhist meditation, in which the goal is to free the conscious mind completely from desire and from abstraction in order to fully understand the nature of causality and interdependence (more or less.  Your sect may vary).  Regardless, I highly recommend at least one of the two, and maybe both.

Yes, he is, extremely so.  Not in the sense that a Christian Prodestant may think, but acceptance of Buddha achieving Enlightenment, and the spiritual realm that includes it, is defined as a theistic belief.

By whom?  Again, it's only theistic if you think the Buddha apotheosized into a god.  This is a fundamental misread of mainstream Buddhist cosmology.  A crucial question is whether Buddhists think any Buddha has any will or power to change your life or any aspect of the world, and the general answer is no.  Meditation on the Buddha is useful because it instructs and clears your own mind, not because it leads to any response from the Buddha.

[Roac]

the question here is whether Gautama Buddha qualifies as a god by either definition.

Since the notion of god in polytheism is "very powerful", and since other belief systems have included the potential for a Human to become one of the gods (however they are specifically defined), then yes.  Examples; Roman/Greek mythology, where the rare Human has had the chance to become a god.  Also includes other mythologies, and even mormanism.  Some ideas in Buddhism are that Enlightened beings become 'gods' (spiritual beings) who remain in the circle of rebirth, but advance to a spiritual stage(s) whose lifespans are immense.  If you take a nihilistic view, in that his enlightenment means he is no longer reborn or even exists (for our purposes), that doesn't disqualify him from being a god; Norse gods could die a final death.

I'd argue that that confuses the physical characteristics for the mental processes and the intent.

The particulars of the intent depend on, as I stated before, where one believes oneself to be on the path to Enlightenment.  Both Catholic and Buddhism include meditations, for example, whose purpose is to focus your mind.  Call it prayer or not, doesn't matter; this is just terminology.  The act of focusing one's mind on a specific (no wandering!) thing is the same.  For Christians, it may be God himself, or counting beads, or the repitition of a chant.  For Buddhists, it could be Buddha, the number 1, or whatever.  For both, the one teaching the act of meditation is the religious head (God/Buddha).  Both tenants advocate the freedom from personal desire as a desirable (!) goal, and a purpose of prayer/meditation.  God in abstract is "moral good", which is similar in many respects to the eightfold path for Buddhists.  Both claim that a master of this process can/will reach sainthood/enlightenment.  The results of reaching this state normally include gaining supernatural abilities.

That's not to mean that Christians and Buddhists are going to suddenly recognize one another as equivalent, but there are more similarites between them (and other religions) than either group would like to admit.  It's difficult to admit similarity to something else when one is trying to push "The Truth".

A crucial question is whether Buddhists think any Buddha has any will or power to change your life or any aspect of the world, and the general answer is no. Meditation on the Buddha is useful because it instructs and clears your own mind, not because it leads to any response from the Buddha.

A Christian would also answer that although God has the power to change your life, he usually lacks the will to do so.  Christian prayer is not given because the Christian expects a response, at least if done as it should.  The purpose of prayer is to bring one into alignment with God's view; just as Buddha recommended meditation (prayer) to bring Buddhists into alignment with Enlightenment.  Yes, there are plenty of differences, but that's not what makes the matter interesting; it's the fact that both have so much in common.  Roles, goals, motives, and practices have numerous parallels.  You / Buddhists may not like talking about Buddha as a god, but his role within Buddhism as a religious founder who has near unparalleled insight into spiritual wisdom and power over cosmic matters is fundamental to the belief, which would fill most qualifications for a polytheistic god.  To walk into Buddhism with western baggage about God/gods and ascribe those to Buddha is a fault, but that's not what I'm talking about here.

[AOFanboi]

Buddhists do worship a god; The Buddha.

No, they look up to prince Siddartha Gautama and those who later followed, and see them as "examples" who attained nirvana. Sort of like the saints of the RC church. The only "God" they have is the Wheel of Life of endless reincarnation until they reach nirvana. Karma (what decides your fate) is decided by your actions, not some greater being.

(An aside: The place of saints (not to mention the Trinity) sort of makes the RC church polytheistic, by the way: Islam fixed this "bug", and is purely monotheistic, though they have adopted ideas of reincarnation (in sufi philosophy).)

That's not to mean that Christians and Buddhists are going to suddenly recognize one another as equivalent, but there are more similarites between them (and other religions) than either group would like to admit.

Well, I don't think it's a coincidence Jesus blesses exactly eight kinds of virtues in the Sermon on the Mount. :) Add in influences from Mithraism, and Christianity looks like quite the mix of religious ideas. But all that goes back to the "Jahve = Ahura-Mazda, Satan = Ahriman, Jesus = Mithra" stuff that is sort of unpopular in some circles. :)

[Samwise]

Karma (what decides your fate) is decided by your actions, not some greater being.

Many Christians will tell you that whether you go to heaven or hell is determined by your actions, not by God's arbitrary whim.  God certainly wants everyone to come to heaven, but some people, through their actions, steer themselves toward hell instead.

Read the Divine Comedy sometime; Dante had some really interesting ideas.  Among them was the suggestion in Inferno that the souls there weren't sent there by God, but simply lacked the ability to ascend to Heaven because their sins weighed them down and they couldn't put them aside.  (The souls in Purgatory, on the other hand, were still weighed down by sin but had made the choice to try to purge the sin from themselves so that they could join God.)

This concept of sin as an inherent weight on your soul, as opposed to something that God decides you did and decides to punish you for, is pretty darn close to the concept of karma.

[geldonyetich]

With all due respect to the Christians who you've apparently discussed this issue with, the only Christians who think like that are the ones whose theological development ended at the age of seven.

Yes, I did not mean to imply all of Christianity was "behave or else!" fire and brimstone stuff, it largely comes down to the preferred interpretation of the congregation.

And yes, I have to agree with earlier statements that the original Buddha isn't so much a god, at least to most Buddhists.   He's more of a spirital leader of sorts, and only the first in a long line of spirital leaders.

To draw yet another similarity between Christianity and Buddhism (to what ends I don't know - these are different relgions after all) wether or not you worship Buddha is much like the difference between those who worship God and regard Jesus as a messiah, and those who prefer to just worship Jesus directly.

(It's interesting to note that there are those who regard themselves as Buddhist Christians or Christian Buddhists.   The relgions are fairly compatible without treading over eachother's ideals.   However, it's not an easy thing to do, one religion is usually spirtual work enough!)

I take mostly exception to using the word "Worship" when used to describe Buddhas.   To me, it seems that Worship is a pretty strong word for what is just aspiring to adopt spirtual peace through someone's ideals, as "Worship" seems to embody a surrender of sorts.   It creeps me out when a congregation's religious influence reaches the point where you're able to be convinced to hijack 747s and plow them into buildings.   Heck, it creeps me out when the congregation insists on donations.    There's a certain line between religion being a path to personal spiritual enlightenment and religion being used as a means to exert power over people that I refuse to associate with.   Better to be an agnostic or an athiest than to deal with that.

[Samwise]

Better to be an agnostic or an athiest

You must be a Christian.  ;)

[geldonyetich]

Nah, just with christian spelling influences.

[Romp]

Self-worship doesn't mean you go to the Temple Of The Self, in order to tithe to the self, just that the self is the center of your universe.  Without a diety to define existance for you, the only real reason left to live is for yourself.  Without an afterlife, the only thing you have is, well, what you have.  To paraphrase Trump (I think he summed up this view well), "I believe when you die, that's it, so you have to live to have fun".  You could try to argue that self-denial was an alternate route, but I think that is a very strict minority.

Are you saying that the logical end of atheism is hedonism?  I don't see why not believing in God doesnt mean that there is no reason to, for example, dedicate your life to helping other people.

[Calantus]

Self-worship doesn't mean you go to the Temple Of The Self, in order to tithe to the self, just that the self is the center of your universe.  Without a diety to define existance for you, the only real reason left to live is for yourself.  Without an afterlife, the only thing you have is, well, what you have.  To paraphrase Trump (I think he summed up this view well), "I believe when you die, that's it, so you have to live to have fun".  You could try to argue that self-denial was an alternate route, but I think that is a very strict minority.

Are you saying that the logical end of atheism is hedonism?  I don't see why not believing in God doesnt mean that there is no reason to, for example, dedicate your life to helping other people.

That is still worship of self. Infact, it can be said that worship of God is worship of self. You see, no-matter what you do, you always do it because you want to do it. Either it relieves you of guilt, gives you pleasure, prevents a personal disaster, or satisfies an impulse. If you dedicate your life to others it is either because of the pleasure it brings you, the sense of duty it satifies, or because of the guilt, sadness, and/or empathetic pain it relieves.

[Righ]

Enlightened self interest. This thread didn't even make it to page two before joining the chorus line.

[Roac]

That is still worship of self. Infact, it can be said that worship of God is worship of self. You see, no-matter what you do, you always do it because you want to do it.

If you define terms such that everything is included in your definition, regardless of whatever you're discussing, then the definition is useless because it is undescriptive.  This concept, that everyone makes decisions based on maximal gain, is a psychological concept... whose name I can't recall.

I think that this view is a bit too simplistic.  I know from my experience that I've been faced with decisions where there was a "right" choice, and another choice which I wanted to take.  The right choice isn't always the one that leads to maximal gain, which is why they're hard; you know by making them that you lose.  I feel there is a difference between what you want to do, and what you choose to do.  

People are welcome to feel they're the same thing, but that brings up another thought; if you always do what you want to do, and there is no real decision making going on, then you are effectively an automotan.  It also means that people are self-worshippers by default, and without option.

Are you saying that the logical end of atheism is hedonism? I don't see why not believing in God doesnt mean that there is no reason to, for example, dedicate your life to helping other people.

Yes, heidonism is the logical conclusion of an atheistic belief.  Sainthood is the logical conclusion of Christianity.  Enlightenment is the logical conclusion of Buddhism.  Obviously, and hopefully even without these examples, Humanity is not always rational.  See my above argument; I am making the claim that given an interesting decision people have a "right" decision, based on their beliefs (which include the sum of who they are, although religion or lack of is often a major player here), a decision they "want" to make, and the personal choice as to which road to go down.  For Christians it's a matter of temptation and sin, for Buddhists it's karmic dept, and for atheists it's just being stupid.

For an atheist, it's not that you *can't* be a nice guy.  It isn't logical to play Satan Incarnate; heidonism doesn't mean you wear black and sacrifice small animals.  It means you can, if that's what you want, but what you want is often socially imposed, which means such things are generally excluded.  The whys of the want aren't relevant; if your only pleasure in the world is making paper airplanes, that's what you'll do.  If you enjoy helping the homeless (or whatever), then that's what you do; just recognize that it isn't because you're a good guy.  You're a very selfish guy who just happens to enjoy good deeds.  There's nothing honorable or noble about it; if the individual suddenly desired to grow Chia Pets instead, that's what he'd do.

Not that an atheist couldn't be honorable or noble.  The individual could decide that their moral code, even as an atheist, requires these virtues.  However, such virtue is not rational.  The atheist could take action to support these virtues, for example by donating money to a homeless shelter instead of buying another Chia Pet.  There is no rational reason to be honorable here; there's nothing to gain, but something to lose.  The person is making a choice to step away from what they want, but for an atheist, what's right is defined by what they want, so they are also making a wrong choice.

For technical references, read up on the Prisoner's Delima.  The person making the decision has a dominant strategy.  Being honorable is not included in a non-iterative game.  In an interative game, it can be, such as with a "tit for tat" strategy, where you cut the opponent a break in one iteration with the expectation of him doing the same to you in the next.  Should the opponent screw you, you'd screw him in turn, but the strategy is to "act nice" in order to attempt to garner more payoffs.  That, in contrast to the non-iterative use of the virtue above, is a rational strategy for an atheist.