This is very similar to a key portion of the Discordian viewpoint, as expressed in Illuminatus!. Maybe the authors were borrowing from LeVay, since it seems every major work of religion or philosophy is thrown in there someplace. Anyway I think that’s a very good reason to use the name Satanism, even if it’s not the historical answer. My theory was that Satanists believed that the positive aspects of individuality had become associated with Satan and they were sort of ‘reclaiming’ them.
And worse: If I happen to share those other views you have in addition to atheism, then I will suddenly be a Satanist, whether I like it or not.
So you’re saying that if you agreed with all the principles and beliefs of Satanism “whether you like it or not” you’re a Satanist. Well that’s logical isn’t it? However I’m willing to bet that not all the elements of Satanism resonate with you, so it’s not really a problem is it? Your hypothetical is a bit weak.
Wait, you say you have to be born Satanist?
BTW, thanks for starting the thread, it looks great (and also like a lot of hard work, but you seem equal to it). I saw it this morning, but I had to do some stupid work before I could get here!
I read The Satanic Bible years ago, and wound up contributing extra money to the estate of Anton LaVey in the form of book royalties because it kept getting stolen from me and I’d have to buy it again! I think I bought it four times before deciding to just let it go. Catchy title, though. 
Well, no surprise there. I’m the Episkopos of the Heart of Gold Cabal. Of course I’d see Satanism in that light. (So to speak.)
Scissorjack: 
I wasn’t even thinking of Spiderman when I wrote that, but It would make an excellent essay.
I’d have been stunned if you’d said all that without being at least familiar with the whole Discordian thing. By the way, you’re excommunicated.
Kindly yours,
Pope Ourii XLII
Illuminatiprimus, if you don’t mind, could you put into a nutshell the qualitative differences between a Satanist and a Crowleyist? Up until now, I’m afraid I was unaware that there was a distinction; and in fact, have sometimes used the two terms interchangeably. (Sorry about that!)
'Fraid so. To clarify this point (as it’s discussed a lot on the satanic forum I frequent) what this means is that Satanism is less of a belief system (in that there is very little believing actually going on) ad more of a philosophy and approach to life. Someone who isn’t a Satanist and doesn’t agree with its principles can’t convert to it. What happens instead is that one reads TSB and finds in it what they always believed, and their new perspective helps them reframe how they begin to conduct themselves and live their lives. If you don’t get it, or don’t agree with it, then you’re never likely to.
Certainly since recognising I was a Satanist my stance on some things has changed as I’ve started to approach things in a different way, but if I’m honest what it’s largely let me do is stop holding on to things that I didn’t really believe in that much in the first place (like God for one thing). I wouldn’t say I’ve become a different person though, just more honest with myself about what I really think, and I think I now possess a greater clarity of thinking.
Glad you’re enjoying it, and take some pride in the fact that I wouldn’t have done it had you not suggested it.
It’s part of the Satanic conspiracy for generating more money for the COS, we have agents out there who steal Satanic Bibles so you have to buy them again. 
I don’t claim to know enough about Crowley or the OTO to give you a detailed breakdown of the differences, however I know that in Crowley’s belief system there was a lot of room for mystical beings (one of which, the Egyptian deity Set, apparently dictated one of his books to him in the night), and in Satanism there isn’t. Also there is a bigger focus on mysticism in the OTO and thelema practice.
Anton LeVay who founded the COS didn’t have a particularly high view of Aleister Crowley, viewing him as a bit loopy in his beliefs as well as not being exactly a paragon of a responsible life (squandering all his money and dabbling extensively in psychotropic drugs as he did).
I’m surprised at how conservative this is. Would you mind detailing the rationale behind it?
It’s not particularly conservative, in my view. Satanism advocates responsibility to the responsible, breaking the law is not responsible. You can disagree with the law if you want or try and change it (people do) but claiming you’re above it and breaking it is un-Satanic - there’s nothing less Satanic about ending up in prison and/or gaining a criminal record.
Furthermore laws are there for a reason, why would any responsible person want to advocate violence, theft, fraud, damaging of property?
Once the culprit was my Grandma! :eek:
You say that your own beliefs align with Leveyan Satanism, but do you go for the pageantry and ritualism of the magikal aspects of the COS? It’s long seemed to me that there’s a mixed message coming from the COS when it comes to the blending of rational humanism and magikal beliefs.
ETA- Due to some of the writings by people associated with the COS such as Michael Moynahan and Boyd Rice there seems to be an almost inevitable cross between the COS and neo-fascism. Do you support the more fascist/social darwinian aspects that sometimes arise within the COS?
I asked a question a while back, I didn’t see any answer to it.
I am puzzled by your choice of name. Why call yourself “satanist” if you don’t actually worship Satan, or even believe that Satan exists? Would you care to explain what the deal is?
It’s not conservative in terms of being loudly moralizing or anything. But a rule that requires the adherents of Satanism is stay within the bounds of the law, regardless of what the law is? I think that’s conservative, or at least kind of unique in a modern way: every other religion I can think of tends to say that there is either a higher law, or (in the case of more contemporary philosophies) that common law does not always apply to exceptional individuals.
The closest comparison I can think of is “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” and that some religions (Judaism and maybe Islam) allow for believers to skip traditional practices if it will get them in trouble with the law - but this is interesting and different.
I’d like to reiterate my opposition to theft, rape and murder.
From reading online, I’ve managed to dispel a lot of my misconceptions about Satanism, but the concepts you describe here trouble me. Is it accurate then to say that you would not help the weak if they need help? If someone is born with a physically weak body, would you not want to help make them strong? And especially, if the strong is dominating the weak, would you not want to disrupt that imbalance? I know it’s true that we are not born equal, but equality has always seemed the ultimate goal. Obviously, if someone doesn’t want help, then it’s not an issue, but your philosophy seems to be saying that one shouldn’t even offer. Am I misunderstanding the philosophy?
Not to take the OP’s place, but the term originates as a handy label to easily demonstrate Laveyen Satanism as being the antithesis to Christianity and to a minor extent just to be shocking.
Clurican, the messages from the COS and LeVay on the mixing of rational atheism (for the reasons I’ve given above I don’t want to use the term humanism) and magic are very consistent. Can you give me an example of where they contradict? It’s set out from the word go in the Satanic Bible that the two go together, but at the same time (and once again) it’s whatever works for you. Personally I don’t go in for the magical aspects, but I don’t dismiss them. I’ve not participated in a group ritual but that is only due to the fact that I don’t know any other Satanists and therefore don’t have the opportunity, I probably would if I had the connections (but, lacking COS membership, I don’t).
Whilst I agree that the aesthetics of Satanism can be very reminiscent of the symbolism of Fascism there isn’t a strong correlation in the beliefs. Racism isn’t Satanic as it is judging an entire set of people based on something that isn’t related to merit. Social Darwinism is Satanic though, in that in a true meritocracy it would be happening. Personally I’d like to see more of it, I think too many people are protected from the consequences of their actions currently, whilst others are held back for reasons that have nothing to do with them and everything to do with their background/race etc.
Peter Morris, I answered the question but did it as a group answer as you were one of about six people asking the same thing.
Marley23, I’m not sure you’ve thought the logical ramifications of your question through - quite where would this “higher law” come from? There’s no God to give us a law that contradicts secular law, so quite what other system of law should we be following? The examples of Islam/Judaism having conflicts with the law is because their legal systems are based on divine revelation, we have no divine revelation so therefore don’t have a separate legal system. Furthermore Satanism advocates a secular, pluralistic society - one rule for everyone is the ideal. As for the exceptional individuals, again what laws do they need to be breaking?
starryspice, not at all, offer help to others if that’s what you wish to do. I give to three charities every month none of which benefit me directly. I and other Satanists help out others because we choose to, if I saw someone who needed help and I was in a position of giving it (like calling the police/medical services) I’d probably do so (and have).
Again in a truly Satanic society you’d have complete meritocracy and people would be able to achieve based on the effort they make and abilities they have. People who are born physically disabled may never be able to compete on a par with a well-abled person but that doesn’t mean they’re written off as there are other areas in which someone can achieve. There are people who are born with fairly crappy hands dealt to them who achieve more in life than others who have everything on a plate.
What Satanism advocates is meritocracy and stratification; for there to be true equality between people you’d have to have the most able, most driven people held on the same level as the least capable, most apathetic wastes of space. That’s mediocrity, not meritocracy. There are two prominent members of the COS that I know of that are wheelchair bound, but it hasn’t stopped them achieving in life. If you thought that I or the COS was aiming for a world populated entirely by supermen then think again, there will always be (and a need for) the lower achievers - who else are going to sweep the streets/sit behind the checkouts/insert other unskilled labour job?
Meh, you can keep your equality… Satanist don’t beat up on kids, animals, the elderly, etc. Strong also means being strong of mind and will, and those people, with any effort, will rise to the top of any construct involving meritocracy. I don’t see it as being any different than my neighbor’s God wanting him to be a self-actualized person. Except Satanist do it for their own glory, not any god’s.
Satanism endorses indulgement, but strongly frowns on any form of addiction, as it (in my interpretation) represents the same weakness, loss of self-control, and subservience as theism does. (i.e. Alcohol or drugs become the dehumanizing higher power.)
My reading of TSB and CoS website left me also with the impression that it is a blend of (secular) humanism, Rand’s Objectivism (especially The Virtue of Selfishness), Nietschze, social Darwinism (see first paragraph above) with a generous splash of healthy hedonism (indulging yourself without harming others, but also without constraint of societal mores) and a few parts intentional theatrics.
LaVey himself recognized that raw emotional energy is powerful, and that humans are moved by ritual and theatrics. Asking “Why all the magikal mumbo-jumbo and claptrap?” is like asking why an army needs flags and emblems and stirring patriotic speeches. A: They don’t need it, but it gets people fired up. At least Satanists do it knowingly and with calculation, rather than from herd mentality.
Satan is a mascot. I was taughht Satan meant “accuser” in Hebrew, and in some Jewish beliefs he acts as kind of a beta-tester of God’s creation, looking for the flaws and mistakes and loopholes. Yin and Yang, advancing the universe by complementing God. Opposition and adversary, but not necessarily inherently “evil”.
I would greatly appreciate if someone with some knowledge of Hebrew could comment.
I think a lot of people on the SDMB might be Satanists as well as many seem to think capitalism is the tool of The Devil (who, ironicly, you don’t believe in)