Another echo. Why take the name of a being you don’t believe exists AND who is associated with evil, destruction, and antagonism? The very name Satan literally means “adversary” or “antagonist” IINM, and if not then he’s certainly the archenemy of Christians.
It seems a bit childish. Why not just call yourself a “rational humanist” or whatever?
I’m wondering much the same thing as capybara (edit: and apparently everybody else) - Why even use the term Satanist if you don’t believe such an entity exists?
Does it have a historical basis, as in what Satanism is to you now grew out of an older set of beliefs that did posit Satan’s existence? Or would you say you feel the beliefs of a Satanist (ie: those you have detailed in this thread) are represented by the mythical Satan - that a certain interpretation of who Satan is serves as an example to you?
Otherwise it seems, at best, entirely pointless. At worst, it seems like a deliberate and aggressive appropriation of Christian terminology designed for shock value.
So why call it Satanism if you don’t worship Satan? Or do you just like Satanic imagery - pentagrams, demonic imagery, lots of blacks and reds, etc?
How do Satanists feel about capitalism and free markets?
Sounds similar to Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.
The Church of Satan was founded in the counter-culture movement of the 1960s. Whatever justifications they might have for the name, there probably was some intention to be shocking and antagonistic to the mainstream.
IlluminatiPrimus, how closely do your beliefs match the CoS’s teachings? Why aren’t you a member?
I think you are confusing the word “Libertarian” and " Satanist" with each other
Is Satanism compatible or incompatible with the following schools of thought:[ul][]Buddhism[]Taoism[]Scientology[]Hard determinism[]Objectivism (seems obvious, but just checking) []Enlightenment deism (probably not, but maybe there’s wiggle room?)[]Baha’i[]Hermeticism[/ul]That is, can you be a “Hermetic Satanist” or would that be some kind of contradiction in terms?
I’ve heard Satan is a gentleman; a man of wealth and taste, one might say. Is that true?
[QUOTE=Randy Seltzer]
Is Satanism compatible or incompatible with the following schools of thought:[ul][li]Buddhism[]Taoism[]Scientology[]Hard determinism[]Objectivism (seems obvious, but just checking) []Enlightenment deism (probably not, but maybe there’s wiggle room?)[]Baha’iHermeticism[/ul]That is, can you be a “Hermetic Satanist” or would that be some kind of contradiction in terms?[/li][/QUOTE]
Baha’i believe in a divine power, so I’d say no. I would say no on Taoism as well since their principles include living a “proper” moral life and seeking simplicity. Not OK with Buddhism either, as the heavy emphasis on pleasure-seeking in Satanism is contrary to Buddhist teachings of avoiding greed and freeing one’s self from the trappings of the material world - not to mention that many Buddhists include belief in a deity. Scientology does include belief in an evil deity (Xenu) though they don’t tell you that until much later. I don’t know about the others.
Ferret Herder
My understanding of Baha’i is that the belief system involves a higher power, but they do not prescribe a particular power. So it might fit with the “force of the universe.”
And I thought that Scientologists didn’t actually believe Xenu was a god. (So pending an answer from Illuminatiprimus, we could actually have Satanic Scientologists out there!)
You’re probably dead on about Taoism and Buddhism though.
According to my teachers, you can be a Hermetic anything - from Christian to Buddhist to Atheist. I don’t know of any reason you couldn’t be a Hermetic Satanist. In fact LeVay, at least, has some *very *Hermetic stuff in The Satanic Bible, IIRC. (It’s been a long time since I read it.)
LeVay, certainly, believed in magic, which he defined as, “a change in situations or events in accordance with one’s will which would, using normally accepted methods, be unchangeable” - so it seems he had some influence from Hermetic sources. It seems the OP differs on this point.
I came here to ask :
So, you believe you’re going to Hell, when you die, right? Why would you want to?
But I see that you don’t actually believe in the devil or hell. So let me ask this: what is the point of calling yourself Satanist if you don’t follow Satan or even believe he exists? I’m just curious about the choice of name. It just seems peculiar.
My friends and family often have trouble making that distinction, too.
Illuminatiprimus: I look forward to reading your responses with great interest. And I am somewhat disappointed to discover, to my surprise, that some Satanists apparently have early bedtimes. 
Unless you are at some kind of full-moon revel.
I myself am wondering how Satanists, in the context of a loose social network (i.e., “group of friends”), handle the inevitable conflicts that arise from two people’s wills being focused inconveniently on the same object. Does one react philosophically – “Oh, well, he was just trying to fulfill his divine will, nothing personal”? Assuming that each would have a roughly congruent committment to his or her own desires, is it all just kind of sporting?
And, are the O.T.O. “Satanists”?
This is ‘Ask the Satanist’, not ‘Allow the Satanist to Introduce Himself.’
At anyrate (Even 23 Woo Woos per minute), IP, I’ve many Satanist friends myself, and to me, the kernel of satanism is the ‘non serviam’ aspect. To be able to reject the power of other’s opinons and expectations and say no. Satan said no to God and I say no to you. You can kill an enlightened soul, but you can’t bend them to your will. There is enormous power there, and enormous responsibility. From this flows rejecting any morality/rules but your own and “nothing is forbidden / everything is permitted” all the way to "I am a natural part of the universe, which is God, therefore I am God. Dangerous. I like it expressed better ala Heinlein’s SIASL ‘Thou art God’ But that’s me.
Agree or disagree that this is valid Satanism 101 condensed?
Like Frater Guido Sarduci’s 5 minute Seminary: Where is God? God is everywhere. Why? Because he likes you.
This might also be a clue as to why call it satanism (because we can/want to).
Mmm, good point. He’s really some kind of alien emperor. I guess we need to figure out if Satanists believe in UFOs containing “little green men.” 
It would only be the higher-level Scientologists who find out about that point, anyway. And Scientology claims that their belief system is compatible with just about any religion, last I checked. On a more practical level, I wonder if the level of dedication many Scientologists are expected to devote to the group, to work off the costs of their classes and auditing, would be contrary to a Satanist’s beliefs. Maybe a sufficiently wealthy one wouldn’t mind paying out the money in exchange for the promise of being not held back by one’s past experiences and problems, but the auditing might rub them the wrong way since it’s nearly a confessional.
Satan is Spiderman? I guess that explains the whole “Lord Of The Flies” bit, then.
I forgot to add the caveat that I realize it’s not compatible with many religions, but you don’t find that out until later on, so I’m sure a lot of people get suckered in because they’re lied to about the compatibility.
I think you are confusing the words “Libertarian” and “Libertine”.
Brujaja - not a particularly early bedtime, I just live in a different timezone to the rest of you.
Well nice to see some interest in this topic, although unfortunately a lot of it is essentially the same question: if you don’t believe in Satan, why call it Satanism? I’m not surprised as it’s a question that comes up quite frequently. I’m sorry to have to say this but the answer may not be satisfactory for some (capybara particularly who really doesn’t seem to like it).
When Satanism was first founded by LeVay in 1966 the stance and trappings he used were very much anti-Christian, inverted crosses and black masses and so forth. However it quickly became obvious to him this was self-limiting and he took the Church and religion in a more distinctive direction with its own identity other than simply being an anti-Christian movement. The original use of Satan as a symbol was partly based in the desire for the religion to be anti-Christian, but even after that initial phase of the movement the symbol remains appropriate. Yes Satan means adversary in the Hebrew translation and that is the crux of Satanism - opposition to conventional thinking and complacency. Also where you see shock value, we see a symbol that provokes thought and reaction. To quote LeVay from the Devil’s Notebook:
“I have termed my thought ‘Satanism’ because it is most stimulating under that name. Self discipline and motivation are effected more easily under stimulating conditions. Satanism means ‘the opposition’ and epitomizes all symbols of nonconformity. Satanism calls forth the strong ability to turn a liability into an advantage, to turn alientation into exclusivity. In other words, the reason it’s called Satanism is because it’s fun, it’s accurate, and it’s productive.” (Bolding mine.)
I’d also make the point that the symbol of Satan doesn’t belong to Christians, and that using it in our way doesn’t give them credence particularly as we see it. Believing in God and trying to rebel by throwing your lot in with the devil and trying to summon demons etc would be, but that’s not what we do. So, there’s the answer, make of it what you will (including your own lack of satisfaction if that isn’t what you think it should be). If anyone feels that didn’t answer a particular aspect of this general query then feel free to come back on it (but please don’t just argue with it).
WhyNot, I think I need to add some further clarification to my previous post - whilst given the choice between animal-sacrificing goth and rational humanist I would term myself the latter, that description doesn’t fit completely either. Humanism contains elements that aren’t compatible with Satanism, namely universality and egalitarianism. Satanism accepts that the strong will dominate the weak, that there is a hierarchy in nature and that people will naturally stratify themselves within that hierarchy - it definitely does not take the position that all are born or indeed are equal. You might think this unpalatable but we see it merely as accepting reality, it’s simply not the case that everyone is the same, or indeed ever likely to be, and we are certainly not all equal. That said Satanism runs strongly on the principle of meritocracy, so don’t think I’m advocating some 1920s world where everyone knows they’re place and sticks to it, quite the opposite. In the most Satanic societies those that are the most able will ascend to take charge, and those that have neither the ability nor the inclination will float to the bottom.
We’re all for it, given that the alternative would be systems where one’s freedom to choose would be restricted. Elements of Objectivism were incorporated by LeVay into the Satanic Bible, as were elements of Nietzsche’s superman principle.
As far as I can tell my beliefs match very closely with the COS, although it is probably worth pointing out that the Church of Satan isn’t entirely analogous with Christian churches with a set doctrine. It obviously embodies Satanism and holds exclusive right to do so, but it doesn’t seek to force completely uniformity of belief within the religion. There are the basic principles of Satanism which are no brainers (what is contained with the Satanic Bible, the stance on legal responsibility etc) but there is quite a lot of wiggle room to interpret and apply the religion to your own life as suits you - which is just as it should be as it’s a religion about advancement of the self. A lot of queries on specific or personal issues that are submitted to the COS that I’ve read are largely answered with “whatever works with you”. The COS is an underground organisation comprised of very diverse individuals on the cabal principles - LeVay said he wanted trying to label the COS to be as easy as nailing custard to the wall, and as far as I can tell that’s pretty much what it is.
I’m not a member because so far it’s not felt imperative that I join - I get to socialise online with other Satanists in a capacity that suits me for now and I’m still developing my own application of Satanism to my own life. Joining the COS brings advantages but mostly it’s a case of you get out what you put into it, and right now I’m getting enough out of life without needing to join the COS. I’m intending to relatively soon though, probably later this year.
What drew me to Satanism - well ironically enough random chance, initially. During xmas 2006 in the long period of non-activity that is the holiday break it just occurred to me to do some research on satanism (small s) expecting to find a lot about medieval cults and so forth (which there was a bit about) but the main thing I discovered was LeVay and Satanism (big s) and the existence of the COS. From there I went out and bought the Satanic Bible which upon reading felt like a real revelation, and I kept on going from there.
There aren’t any supernatural claims of Satanism, no gods, devils or demons. Satanism has magic as part of its system of belief but it’s founded on the principle of application and practice, and magic is mostly what Magus Gilmore calls psychodrama. There is also the actual achieving outcomes through non-obvious means part of magic but having never experienced that myself I can’t really talk about it.
capbybara, in regard to your hedonism point, Satanism is most definitely not a glorified “do whatever you feel like” system of belief. Another central principle of Satanism is responsibility - illegal acts are expressly forbidden, and this includes the use of drugs. I’m amazed by just how many people who have joined the Satanic forum I belong to seem to go straight from “do what thou wilt” to “great, it’s a life of drunken rape and pillage for me”, completely missing the very explicit point of responsibility to the responsible.
Astro, Satanism is a religion, libertarianism is a political position/outlook. They needn’t be (nor are) incompatible.
On the question of Scientology, no true Satanist would be a Scientologist for a few simple reasons:
Scientology holds a bizarre belief system that is entirely founded on faith, whatever they may claim. Doubt and suspicion, not faith, defines the Satanic outlook. Suspending one’s rational mind to, for example, practice magic is one thing - throwing away everything you’ve ever believed or known in an attempt to swallow something and hold it down is quite another.
To be a Scientologist it is necessary to belong to and financially support the Church of Scientology International (CSI). You’re either born a Satanist or you’re not, joining an organisation doesn’t make it so. Also stratification should occur through deed and action, not wealth - the COS operates on the former principle, the CSI on the latter.
Further to 2, no Satanist would join an organisation that effectively demanded money off you to progress within it. The COS website specifically warns Satanists from joining them any group (Satanic or no) that requires people to buy their progression or, indeed, wade through layers of outer gibberish on the promise of some inner truth which is exactly what Scientology does.
From what I can understand of the gobbleygook that Scientologists spout there is still some kind of reverence or worship required of their weird emperor. I’m completely open to the idea of extra-terrestrial life, but no matter how advanced it is it’s still not a god and I’m still not going to worship it (Magus Gilmore said the same thing in a radio interview he did not that long ago).
Brujaja, the OTO aren’t Satanists, they’re Crowleyists - different species altogether.
Randy Seltzer - Ferret Herder has answered for me, so I won’t rehash. On the point about Hermeticism from my read of the wikipedia entry on the subject I’d say no, given the parts about celestial deities, reincarnation and so forth. LeVay may have used some of the symbolism, but the beliefs seem to be antithetical.
Phew - this is hard work, keep the questions coming (it’ll keep me occupied during the weekend if nothing else).
I think this is pretty silly. One could conceivably have a belief system which is actually based on Satan and his values, even acknowledging that he doesn’t actually exist. The Satan in the OT doesn’t seem particularly evil to me. Anyone who opposes that tyrannical god gets a plus point in my book. But now they can’t call themselves satanists, because some atheists (who also believe in non-conformity or something) have taken it.