for those who do not believe in god.......

[Avatar4321]

How come there's shows all the time on History, Nat.Geo.and Discovery channels where archeologists find ruins of city's that correspond to descriptions in the bible?

Because its a historical book. The people who wrote it just didnt make up places.

I believe in the Bible but I dont think archealogy is going to prove the literal reality of the resurrection.

The only way to know the Bible is true is to find out the way Peter found out that Jesus Christ was the Son of God: Ask the Father.

 

[LOki]

So secular archeologists did not find places and events that correspond with ancient biblical scripture?

Maybe you should double check before you answer...

I would suggest that you should double check your notion of the precise nature of historical fiction.

 

[jillian]

So secular archeologists did not find places and events that correspond with ancient biblical scripture?

Maybe you should double check before you answer...

If I write an historical novel, it doesn't make the factual parts of my novel any less true or the fictional parts of my novel any more true.

Not a difficult concept.... And viewing the bible as allegory doesn't diminish it in any way.

I can't imagine any set of circumstances where G-d would reject any of his children who do good.

 

[editec]

When you die if you discover nothing because you are dead..

Then what?

Stupid premises deserve stupid responses.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

The word Satanist implies the following of the being called by that same name, Satan. Satan is a christian concept, not an atheist concept, therefore no true atheist could ever follow Satan since it would require the acknowledgement of the christian myths. Satanism is the "dark" christian belief, as every religion has our own "bile', Satanists are the christian "bile', the worst of the worst. No pagan could ever be a Satanist either, nor heathens, since none of us acknowledge the existence of such a being either, though we do have our own "dark" gods, like Set the poisoner for mine. As for the role the dark sides play in the religions themselves not all are considered evil, though Satanists are by default, the being they follow is of pure evil according to the myths.

The only "atheist concept" is a lack of belief in God/gods. Beyond that you're going to find a plethora of philosophies, rational and irrational. In fact any philosophy that is not mutually exclusive with theism. This includes asserting that neither God nor Satan actually exist, but that Satan is a symbol of what they consider good while God is a symbol of tyranny. Look up Satanism on Wikipedia.

Wiki as a source of facts ... sad. How about this, just look in the dictionary, here:

Online Etymology Dictionary

To believe in Satan one must believe in christian myth, thus they also believe in the other christian god, they just chose to follow the dark one instead of the light one. Seriously, I thought you were logical and didn't like taking what one person wrote as fact without study of some sort.

lol, I didn't originally hear about it in Wikipedia. Using Wikipedia is a matter of convenience, and it is not often wrong. I have no idea why you find the idea that there can be an atheistic satanist offensive. There is nothing in the roots of the word that imply you have to worship and believe in Satan as a being instead of a concept. Anyway, in order to validate whether Wikipedia is correct or not you mostly need to look at the sources of the information. Wikipedia is not a primary source. They cite the atheistic satanist organizations themselves, as well as sites like http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanis2.htm.

The fact of the matter is that there are people who call themselves Satanists who don't actually believe in the supernatural, but follow a philosophy that is defined by its opposition to Christianity. The type of Satanist that actually believes in Satan might be an older group, but that doesn't mean we have to restrict the words usage that way. I have no idea what is illogical about that. If a group of people decided to dedicate themselves to wisdom and warfare and called themselves Athenaists, I would not tell them they have to actually believe in Athena to call themselves that. It would be a symbol that applies to their philosophy.

Oh fuck! Lolsome. In an effort to get a rise out of Christian fundamentalists (and ride the free advertising media wave of self righteouos and hysterical Christian indignation) some anti-fundamentalist retards adopt the patently retarded strategy of asserting that atheists are Satanists by inventing (out of thin fucking air) and then selling, the riotously self-contradictory notion of . . . and I can't beleive any thoughtful individual would buy into this hilarious notion . . . "Atheistic Satanism."

I think you misunderstand me.

I'm sure I understand you--and I'm not sure you understand what "atheist" means.

I didn't claim you did.

You CAN'T be a Satanist if you are an atheist.

It most certianly is.

No. There are ONLY theistic Satanists.

Then they are NOT Satanists.

But that's all beside the actual point, right? A point you'd rather not explore, I'm wagering.

Why would someone who does not believe in God go to hell for standing up for their principles?​

What principle is it EXACTLY, that an atheist holds that is so repugnant to God, that in His infinite mercy and Divine <LOL>Justice</LOL>, He would sentence that person He loves sooooooooooooooooo dearly to Hell?

LOL. I'm not a Christbot. I am an atheist. There are all kinds of atheists though.

Actually, there are really only two types of athiest; and one of them IS NOT "theistic atheist."

You most certainly did not understand me because you initiated an ad hominem attack based upon the erroneous idea that I am a theist. I am not a theist, or a Satanist for that matter.

An atheist is somebody who lacks a belief in God or gods. It is mutually exclusive with theist, and the terms are all-inclusive. Babies are atheists because they lack belief, but not in the same sense that I am, that is to say I positively don't believe in supernatural beings. Now, what is your definition?

 

[Peejay]

Where is a Jew when you need one ?

 

[Yurt]

when you die......and you discover there is a god.......what will you do........

will you beg for forgivness or stand by your principals and go to hell......

i can't speak for them...

but i believe the bible talks about those who will pray for the rocks to fall on them....those are the ones who do not want heaven....

 

[Yurt]

it amusing to see those that have "evidence" the bible is not historically accurate call their evidence....theory....based on what is found in dirt

cracks me up.....

any evidence that god does not exist....is that found in the dirt? any evidence that homosexuality is the best thing for our species? any evidence in the dirt that we absolutely, without a single doubt, came from pond scum that turned into monkeys and then into humans....

 

[Peejay]

it amusing to see those that have "evidence" the bible is not historically accurate call their evidence....theory....based on what is found in dirt

cracks me up.....

any evidence that god does not exist....is that found in the dirt? any evidence that homosexuality is the best thing for our species? any evidence in the dirt that we absolutely, without a single doubt, came from pond scum that turned into monkeys and then into humans....

The fossil record is pretty solid. Asking me not to believe in what I can see and feel.....that's the hard part. We have entire wooly mamoths now, frozen for 25,000 years. Not just some bones....flesh, hair, the whole critter. The timeline for the Bible just doesn't add up. Maybe it's a mistranslation. But 3,000 years isn't right. Also, creating everything all together isn't right. The seven days thing. We know that life has been all but destroyed at least a couple times and then re emerged slowly over millions of years. Again, I'm sure that is some kind of misunderstanding. Or maybe it's just a conspiracy to make me beleive that so I will........shit.....I'm not sure what the motivation is for spending so much time on the great paleontology conspiracy. They must want something for all that effort.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

it amusing to see those that have "evidence" the bible is not historically accurate call their evidence....theory....based on what is found in dirt

cracks me up.....

any evidence that god does not exist....is that found in the dirt?

You have that backwards. We don't need evidence that god does not exist anymore than you need evidence that invisible unicorns don't exist. If I wanted to prove that invisible unicorns exist, I would need some kind of evidence. You, too, need evidence for your equally outlandish claim. Eyewitness testimony recorded 70 years after the fact does not count as solid evidence. Not that what they witnessed would prove god exists anyway.

Maybe it would be more convincing if the Bible's accuracy and morality reflected something above and beyond the capabilities of the people of the time. Reading it, and looking at evidence, one can see that there are parallels between the Bible and history, but the interpretation is through a Bronze Age paradigm, not a divine one. The pre-historical stuff, such as that in Genesis, however, is just completely ridiculous and wrong.

any evidence that homosexuality is the best thing for our species?

Homosexuality can be a consentual act that harms no non-consenting 3rd parties. So it's one of those acts that should be accepted as nobody else's business.

any evidence in the dirt that we absolutely, without a single doubt, came from pond scum that turned into monkeys and then into humans....

There's not much doubt about evolution, which does, in fact, contradict the Bible. Scientists are less sure about life's origin. But the "pond scum" idea is not widely held. Most biologists believe life originated in the oceans.

 

[BrokenAngel]

By then, it will be too late.

View attachment 7077

Sending atheists to hell for not believing in God never made any sense to me.

But that mgiht be a different thread.

No, this is the perfect thread for that, that's basically what the contention is.

I think it's nuts to, any sane god wouldn't care about that, they'd be more interested in how a person lives and treats other beings, more importantly how they treat the other living things than anything, since it's the deities creations in the first place. A true god would be all powerful regardless of who worships them or even how, so why would they care? No intelligent being would care.

God created man to worship Him, believe in Him, and above all love Him. According to the Christian faith and the Bible, in order to be saved all you need to do is open your heart and accept Christ as your savior. -Shrugs- If there is a downside to simply accepting Christ as your savior and finding faith tell me please. I am not saying you need to throw yourself on the altar or start speaking in tongues or even attend church weekly. But if there is a 50 - 50 chance you are wrong and the only way you can lose is by NOT believing in God then I don't see the point of fighting it. Just my opinion... if someone could enlighten me further I would love to hear honest opinions on this statement.

 

[LOki]

The only "atheist concept" is a lack of belief in God/gods. Beyond that you're going to find a plethora of philosophies, rational and irrational. In fact any philosophy that is not mutually exclusive with theism. This includes asserting that neither God nor Satan actually exist, but that Satan is a symbol of what they consider good while God is a symbol of tyranny. Look up Satanism on Wikipedia.

Wiki as a source of facts ... sad. How about this, just look in the dictionary, here:

Online Etymology Dictionary

To believe in Satan one must believe in christian myth, thus they also believe in the other christian god, they just chose to follow the dark one instead of the light one. Seriously, I thought you were logical and didn't like taking what one person wrote as fact without study of some sort.

lol, I didn't originally hear about it in Wikipedia. Using Wikipedia is a matter of convenience, and it is not often wrong. I have no idea why you find the idea that there can be an atheistic satanist offensive. There is nothing in the roots of the word that imply you have to worship and believe in Satan as a being instead of a concept. Anyway, in order to validate whether Wikipedia is correct or not you mostly need to look at the sources of the information. Wikipedia is not a primary source. They cite the atheistic satanist organizations themselves, as well as sites like SATANISM.

The fact of the matter is that there are people who call themselves Satanists who don't actually believe in the supernatural, but follow a philosophy that is defined by its opposition to Christianity. The type of Satanist that actually believes in Satan might be an older group, but that doesn't mean we have to restrict the words usage that way. I have no idea what is illogical about that. If a group of people decided to dedicate themselves to wisdom and warfare and called themselves Athenaists, I would not tell them they have to actually believe in Athena to call themselves that. It would be a symbol that applies to their philosophy.

I'm sure I understand you--and I'm not sure you understand what "atheist" means.

I didn't claim you did.

You CAN'T be a Satanist if you are an atheist.

It most certianly is.

No. There are ONLY theistic Satanists.

Then they are NOT Satanists.

LOL. I'm not a Christbot. I am an atheist. There are all kinds of atheists though.

Actually, there are really only two types of athiest; and one of them IS NOT "theistic atheist."

You most certainly did not understand me because you initiated an ad hominem attack . . .

Oh really? Demonstrate.

. . . based upon the erroneous idea that I am a theist.

Oh really? Demonstrate.

I am not a theist, or a Satanist for that matter.

I didn't say you were . . . EVER.

An atheist is somebody who lacks a belief in God or gods.

An athiest can also disbelieve in God or gods. That would be the other kind of atheist, and you'll note that neither of them can be Satanists.

It is mutually exclusive with theist, and the terms are all-inclusive.

Precisely why they CANNOT be Satanists.

Babies are atheists because they lack belief, . . .

And thus they CANNOT be Satanists.

. . . but not in the same sense that I am, that is to say I positively don't believe in supernatural beings.

And as I said before, therefore you CANNOT be a Satanist.

But you are absoultely confused if you insist that atheists can be Satanists.

Now, what is your definition?

My definitions are pretty clear, but you need to explain how your definitions allow that a theist can be an athiest.

 

[N4mddissent]

First, because there are historical places mentioned in the bible does not make the bible true. Otherwise, it is just as reasonable to believe in Aphrodite and Apollo since there are actual places mentioned in the Iliad.

And here is a biblical lie.

"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."
LEV 11:6

Rabbits do not chew cud. The word Gerah means cud, not dung. The phrase used is more accurately translated, "bring up the cud". Rabbits do not do this. They just eat. Unlike the cow which does regurgitate cud and chew it for digestion.

By the way, how did Judas die?

 

[LiveUninhibited]

You most certainly did not understand me because you initiated an ad hominem attack . . .

Oh really? Demonstrate.

Oh really? Demonstrate.

I didn't say you were . . . EVER.

and I can't beleive any thoughtful individual would buy into this hilarious notion . . . "Atheistic Satanism."
[&#8230;]
But that's all beside the actual point, right? A point you'd rather not explore, I'm wagering.
Why would someone who does not believe in God go to hell for standing up for their principles?
What principle is it EXACTLY, that an atheist holds that is so repugnant to God, that in His infinite mercy and Divine <LOL>Justice</LOL>, He would sentence that person He loves sooooooooooooooooo dearly to Hell?

So you go into this theatrical but indirect ad hominem, and then I took the last paragraph as an implication that you believed I was a theist. You say it's a point I'd rather not explore, quote yourself, and then go into a very basic critique of theism. What did you expect that to convey?

An athiest can also disbelieve in God or gods. That would be the other kind of atheist, and you'll note that neither of them can be Satanists.

Precisely why they CANNOT be Satanists.

And thus they CANNOT be Satanists.

You call yourself Loki for fuck's sake. Does that mean you worship the Norse god Loki? No. Perhaps are using Loki as a symbol of your philosophy or personality traits, but it sounds doubtful you actually believe Loki exists.

Similarly, somebody can call themselves a Satanist without actually believing Satan exists. If they do not believe Satan exists, they can still use the concept of Satan as a symbol. I can agree with you that the philosophy is not a rational approach, but there's no violation of language going on here. The suffix -ist does not mean "one who worships." It means

-ist&#8194;
a suffix of nouns, often corresponding to verbs ending in -ize or nouns ending in -ism, that denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.: apologist; dramatist; machinist; novelist; realist; socialist; Thomist.

-ist definition | Dictionary.com

So what are doctrines of Satan? Well this could certainly mean actual worship of Satan, but it could also mean using him as a symbol just like you use Loki as a symbol.

The word Satan, as mentioned by Dissent, means adversary. So Satanist means somebody who believes adversarial doctrines to, by implication, Christianity. This is why Christians have historically called most non-Christians Satanists.

As for people who call themselves Satanists, they include groups who are atheistic as well as theistic.

My definitions are pretty clear, but you need to explain how your definitions allow that a theist can be an athiest.

Because not all Satanist see Satan as a real entity, but rather as a symbol of their philosophy.

 

[mightypeon]

Actually, I would rate the case of Saul as an example were someone who certainly wasnt "evil" (his crime was sacrificing captured property to god instead of destroying it outright) but got punished quite a lot.

Well, the OT is whacky, in some cases even totally whacky like God beeing stopped by someone having chariots of Iron.

Precisly what did the Pharao (who was the guy who God sold the Israelites to iirc) do to warrant beeing "brainwashed" and subsequently collectivly punished for acting in accordance to his brainwashing?

If god acts like this on earth, what reason would he have to act differently in heaven?

 

[LOki]

So you go into this theatrical but indirect ad hominem, . . .

I see. You can't actually find evidence that I launched an ad-hominem attack on you. ". . . indirect ad hominem . . ."Are you going to tell me that that is not even just the tiniest bit disingenuous?

Look, I am not above ad-hominem attacks--they offer some entrtainment value for me--but I do know when I launch them. I KNOW I didn't launch an ad-hominem attack on you, either directly or indirectly.

The thing is, you know it too. It's time for your intellectual integrity to cowboy up.

. . . and then I took the last paragraph as an implication that you believed I was a theist.

I stated unambiguously that if you're an athiesit you cannot be a theist--I can't be held responsible for your stupidity.

You say it's a point I'd rather not explore, . . .

You seem to be validating the notion . . .

. . . quote yourself, and then go into a very basic critique of theism.

Produce this critique.

What did you expect that to convey?

That there's a point to this thread, and the wager that you'd rather not explore it.

I'm pretty much accurate so far.

You call yourself Loki for fuck's sake. Does that mean you worship the Norse god Loki? No.

Well you finally get something right.

Perhaps are using Loki as a symbol of your philosophy or personality traits, but it sounds doubtful you actually believe Loki exists.

You'll be careful enough to note I don't call myself a Lokitarianist, or whatever.

If so, you should also be careful enough to not make unfounded presumptions regarding my philosophy, or why I use "LOki" for a nick'.

Similarly, somebody can call themselves a Satanist without actually believing Satan exists.

You can declare yourself a mammalian bumble bee, and you can get those who beleive in magical animals (like the pegasus, the minotaur, the unicorn, etc) to agree with you--but amongst those of us who are interested in the real world, if you're a bumble bee, you're not a mammal; and if you're a mammal, you're not a bumble bee. I'm sorry LiveUninhibited, actual Satanists neccessarily worship Satan, believe in God, and are neccessarily NOT atheists.

If they do not believe Satan exists, they can still use the concept of Satan as a symbol.

Anyone can use Satan as a symbol, but if you do not believe that Satan is real, then you are really NOT a Satanist--you're just a bit of a poser.

I can agree with you that the philosophy is not a rational approach, but there's no violation of language going on here.

There's a violation of the specific definition of "Satanist" though.

The suffix -ist does not mean "one who worships." It means

-ist&#8194;
a suffix of nouns, often corresponding to verbs ending in -ize or nouns ending in -ism, that denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.: apologist; dramatist; machinist; novelist; realist; socialist; Thomist.

-ist definition | Dictionary.com

Interesting that you go to Dictionary.com to get your definition of "-ist" to bolster you assertions regarding Satanists, but you don't paste in the definition of Satanist:

Sa&#8901;tan&#8901;ism [seyt-n-iz-uhm]
&#8211;noun
1. the worship of Satan or the powers of evil.
2. a travesty of Christian rites in which Satan is worshiped.
3. diabolical or satanic disposition, behavior, or activity

Note that the specific definitions of Satanism all assert the worship, therefore presume belief in the existence of Satan.

So what are doctrines of Satan? Well this could certainly mean actual worship of Satan, but it could also mean using him as a symbol just like you use Loki as a symbol.

Non-existent beings have non-existent doctrines; if you're a Satanist that doesn't believe that Satan exists, whose doctrines do you think you're adhering to? And since I'm not using Loki as a symbol at all, that pretty much settles it.

If you're really a Satanist (and not just calling yourself one) you really believe that Satan is real, and therefore you're a theist; the consequence of which is that you CANNOT BE AN ATHEIST!

If you're really an atheist (and not just calling yourself one) you really don't believe Satan is real--the consequence of which is that YOU CANNOT BE A SATANIST!

The end-game LiveUninhibited, is that anyone who suggests that they really can be some kind of theistic-atheist is someone who is thoroughly confused, or just full of shit.

The word Satan, as mentioned by Dissent, means adversary.

The word "Bill" means "the jaws of a bird together with their horny covering." Naming your kid "Bill" doesn't make him "the jaws of a bird together with their horny covering" or establish that his identity has anything to do with "the jaws of a bird together with their horny covering."

So Satanist means somebody who believes adversarial doctrines to, by implication, Christianity.

No. Satan is a distinct individual.

This is why Christians have historically called most non-Christians Satanists.

Christians, historically, said the universe revolved around the Earth--they were, for the most part, a bunch of ignorant dumbfucks (as most everyone back then)--let's not confuse superstitious opinions for being informed opinions.

As for people who call themselves Satanists, they include groups who are atheistic as well as theistic.

You can declare yourself a mammalian bumble bee, and you can get those who beleive in magical animals (like the pegasus, the minotaur, the unicorn, etc) to agree with you--but amongst those of us who are interested in the real world, if you're a bumble bee, you're not a mammal; and if you're a mammal, you're not a bumble bee. I'm sorry LiveUninhibited, actual Satanists neccessarily worship Satan, believe in God, and are neccessarily NOT atheists.

My definitions are pretty clear, but you need to explain how your definitions allow that a theist can be an athiest.

Because not all Satanist see Satan as a real entity, but rather as a symbol of their philosophy.

Then they are NOT really Satanists, any more than Christians who don't believe in Christ are really Christians.

 

[editec]

How come there's shows all the time on History, Nat.Geo.and Discovery channels where archeologists find ruins of city's that correspond to descriptions in the bible?

Which proves what exactly?

That the old testment Bible noted that some cities existed?

Yeah, I believe that.

Does that prove anything but that?

No, of course not.

I can prove that I live in my house here in Maine.

So if I can prove that what else does that prove exactly?

That my beliefs about the cosmos is correct?

Of course not.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

So you go into this theatrical but indirect ad hominem, . . .

I see. You can't actually find evidence that I launched an ad-hominem attack on you. ". . . indirect ad hominem . . ."Are you going to tell me that that is not even just the tiniest bit disingenuous?

Look, I am not above ad-hominem attacks--they offer some entrtainment value for me--but I do know when I launch them. I KNOW I didn't launch an ad-hominem attack on you, either directly or indirectly.

The thing is, you know it too. It's time for your intellectual integrity to cowboy up.

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, but looking at your first response to me, that is still how I see it.

Produce this critique.

I quoted it in my last post.

That there's a point to this thread, and the wager that you'd rather not explore it.

There's nothing I am unwilling to question. I have no idea what you think I'm not exploring.

You'll be careful enough to note I don't call myself a Lokitarianist, or whatever.

And if you did, would that mean you're a theist who worships Loki? Not necessarily. It could mean nothing more or less than calling yourself Loki, it being a symbol of a secular philosophy based upon mythology.

Interesting that you go to Dictionary.com to get your definition of "-ist" to bolster you assertions regarding Satanists, but you don't paste in the definition of Satanist:Note that the specific definitions of Satanism all assert the worship, therefore presume belief in the existence of Satan.

The above bolded contradicts the below bolded.

Sa&#8901;tan&#8901;ism [seyt-n-iz-uhm]
&#8211;noun
1. the worship of Satan or the powers of evil.
2. a travesty of Christian rites in which Satan is worshiped.
3. diabolical or satanic disposition, behavior, or activity

The last definition does not involve worship at all.

Non-existent beings have non-existent doctrines; if you're a Satanist that doesn't believe that Satan exists, whose doctrines do you think you're adhering to? And since I'm not using Loki as a symbol at all, that pretty much settles it.

You're not using Loki as a symbol at all, lol... okay then. If you're a Satanist who doesn't believe Satan exists you are defining your doctrines as the exact opposite of Christian theists. You are atheistic. You believe greed is good. You believe revenge is good. You believe knowledge is good. You believe faith is bad.

Maybe you're confused by the fact that somebody calling themself a Christian is generally understood to be somebody who believes Christ was God and should be worshipped. However, one could follow the teachings of Christ without actually believing he was God, and be called a Christian by some definitions "allowed" by the dictionary:

7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ:

christian definition | Dictionary.com

If you're really a Satanist (and not just calling yourself one) you really believe that Satan is real, and therefore you're a theist; the consequence of which is that you CANNOT BE AN ATHEIST!

If you're really an atheist (and not just calling yourself one) you really don't believe Satan is real--the consequence of which is that YOU CANNOT BE A SATANIST!

We're repeating ourselves. We'll have to agree to disagree, seriously. I don't know how I can show you that you can name your philosophy after a symbol that is understood to be mythology.

 

[LOki]

So you go into this theatrical but indirect ad hominem, . . .

I see. You can't actually find evidence that I launched an ad-hominem attack on you. ". . . indirect ad hominem . . ."Are you going to tell me that that is not even just the tiniest bit disingenuous?

Look, I am not above ad-hominem attacks--they offer some entrtainment value for me--but I do know when I launch them. I KNOW I didn't launch an ad-hominem attack on you, either directly or indirectly.

The thing is, you know it too. It's time for your intellectual integrity to cowboy up.

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, but looking at your first response to me, that is still how I see it.

So much for your intellectual integrity.

There's nothing I am unwilling to question. I have no idea what you think I'm not exploring.

Add a dash of denial of reality.

And if you did, would that mean you're a theist who worships Loki? Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily if I'm being specific and precise, and not just making some cool-sounding shit up.

The last definition does not involve worship at all.

The last definition is not specific to Satanism either.

If you're a Satanist who doesn't believe Satan exists . . .

Then you're NOT a Satanist.

. . . you are defining your doctrines as the exact opposite of Christian theists.

Then you CAN'T be a Satanist.

You are atheistic.

Not if you're really a Satanist.

You believe knowledge is good.

Not if you're a Satanist.

You believe faith is bad.

Not if you're a Satanist.

Maybe you're confused by the fact that somebody calling themself a Christian is generally understood to be somebody who believes Christ was God and should be worshipped. However, one could follow the teachings of Christ without actually believing he was God, and be called a Christian by some definitions "allowed" by the dictionary:

7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ:

christian definition | Dictionary.com

Perhaps you're confused by the erroneous notion that if someone calls themselves something, then they must necessarily be that something.

BTW:You'll not that both of the definitions you cite presume the reality of Christ.

If you're really a Satanist (and not just calling yourself one) you really believe that Satan is real, and therefore you're a theist; the consequence of which is that you CANNOT BE AN ATHEIST!

If you're really an atheist (and not just calling yourself one) you really don't believe Satan is real--the consequence of which is that YOU CANNOT BE A SATANIST!

We're repeating ourselves. We'll have to agree to disagree, seriously. I don't know how I can show you that you can name your philosophy after a symbol that is understood to be mythology.

You can declare yourself a mammalian bumble bee, and you can get those who beleive in magical animals (like the pegasus, the minotaur, the unicorn, etc) to agree with you--but amongst those of us who are interested in the real world, if you're a bumble bee, you're not a mammal; and if you're a mammal, you're not a bumble bee. I'm sorry LiveUninhibited, actual Satanists neccessarily worship Satan, believe in God, and are neccessarily NOT atheists.

 

[N4mddissent]

Ok, the atheistic satanist argument is getting out of hand.

Loki, I understand your frustration. The truth is, someone can adopt a philosophical ideology without a specific deity. There are buddhists who do not worship buddha. They're atheistic buddhists. The traditional idea of "satan" was a generalized concept of the forces adversarial to yahweh and later became a more literal figure who was also called lucifer, etc... So technically, someone who adopts a philosophy adversarial in nature to christianity and judaism and islam, they could consider themselves satanist without actually believing satan as a being exists.

LiveUninhibited, by calling yourself an atheistic satanist, you just invite confusion and ridicule. While it may be technically accurate, it creates the impression of belief in a satan figure, and at the very least appears simplistic in that even in organized religion, there are good points and wisdom which should not be opposed. Not to mention that the judeo-christian belief system is so disorganized that being adversarial to one belief may actually make you an ally to another denomination. In the end it just leaves the appearance of sensationalism in which the satanist title is adopted more for shock value.

Now, agree or agree to disagree, but I don't think it's worth the considerable talent for debate you both possess to waste more time on this particular nuance.