100 posts / 0 new
Last post
Eric T's picture
Oh that why you

Oh that why you have already threatened to "report" me, ImFree? Because you are enjoying this, and would like things to continue?

Very comical and "credible" indeed :)

ImFree's picture
Yes, I don't depend on gods

Yes, I don't depend on gods to do what is right. Would I find it entertaining to see you receive punitive measures for acting like you did? Yes I would. I didn't threaten, I did : ) On the fourth to be exact.

ImFree's picture
You’re blatantly in the wrong

You’re blatantly in the wrong here. Everyone can see through your rationalizing.

ex-christian_atheist's picture
"The expression of

"The expression of "prostitute" in my statement was used as a verb. Hence the form, "...don't prostitute yourself to such a thing." That is, to exchange something valuable and worthy, such as the poster's current life and happy marriage, for a life of service within the Satanic Church and all it's trappings. In my opinion, that would be an unworthy exchange for the poster and her husband."

Nothing about my happy life or marriage need be sacrificed to put a name to the philosiphy I already hold. It wouldn't change anything other that the fact that I call myself part of a religion. I don't call myself a Satanist, simply because I don't feel the urge to be part of any religion, but when someone "becomes" a Satanist, they don't change anything about themselves. They just find out that the philosphy they already held has a name, and they wish to associate themselves with other people who feel the same way.

"My reference to the multiple sex partners was however direct and literal, and was a proscription against what is a stark reality about the Organization itself. To ignore this aspect of the COS is to be uninformed, if not naive.

Your views about the Church of Satan's view on sexuality is completely wrong. There is nothing about the church of Satan that promotes promiscuity. It accepts having multiple partners just as it accepts any sexual expression between consenting adults. On the Church's webiste FAQ, they answer the question very directly:
"Anton LaVey made it very clear in his writings that all forms of human sexual expression between consenting, responsible adults is endorsed by Satanism. That can even mean asexuality—the avoidance of sex altogether."
The Satanic Bible, which I am in the process of reading myself, elaborates even further:
"Much contraversy had arisen over the satanic views on "fee love." It is often assumed that sexual activity is the most important factor of the Satanic religion, and the willingness to participate in sex orgies a requirement for Satanism. Nothing could be further from the truth! In fact, opportunists who have no deeper interest in Satanism then merely sexual aspects are emphatically discouraged. Satanism does encourage sexual freedom, but only in the true sense of the word. Free love in the Satanic concept means exacty that - freedom to either be faithful to one person or to indulge sexual desires with as many as you deem necessary to satisfy your particular needs. Satansim does not encourage orgiastic activity or extramarital affairs to those to whom they do not come naturally."

"So, my instincts (despite your "judgements" concerning me and my character, ImFree), were to protect and not to persecute. Much like you, Prag, and Jeff feel compelled to do now. That is not misogyny, and it is also something far removed from reducing a women's sexuality and emotional depth to a "mating signal".
Whether or not your intent was to protect or not, what you said was incorrect, based on false assumptions, and insulting. To imply that following Satanic philosphy would lead a person to whoring around, is simply to call them a whore, because all Satanism says about it is to do what you feel you need to do to meet your desires. It would be wise to know a thing or two about Satanism, and that doesn't include what you have assumed to be true based on hearing a thing or two about satanists, before you start warning people about what Satanism will lead to.

It should also be noted that the "mating signal" is not something objectifying or mysogynistic, nor does it only apply to women. Again, I'll take this straight from the CoS FAQ (you really should read it before you discuss Satanism):
"The “Mating Signal” is shorthand for the normal adult responses showing that a person might have an interest in you sexually. Most sexually active adults can tell when another adult is attracted to them with erotic intent, and it is a combination of factors that Dr. LaVey felt it more succinct to refer to in that way, rather than cataloguing the dilated pupils, quickened breath, flushed skin, and other visible signs."

Another important thing to note about Satanists, is that being a member of the CoS doesn't really impact your life any more than simply following the philosphy that LeVay followed. The CoS doesn't have temples or chapters, the members don't meet together for sermons or fellowship, and they don't really have an agenda.

ex-christian_atheist's picture
That reply was meant to be

That reply was meant to be for Eric. Not sure why it posted under a different page.

Eric T's picture
Ok, understood, and I

Ok, understood, and I appreciate your thoughts and the clarification, ex-c_a. Again, my apologies if I crossed the line.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Your apologies should be of

Your apologies should be of judging at all without knowing a person.
Typical example of christian humbleness, that sane people call ARROGANCE.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
"carry out your own will,

"carry out your own will, based on your own instincts, and that is more than enough for him (Satan) to have victory in your life."

jeez eric_T

Do you realize that this is a claim that your religion makes?
Or you are so far gone that you consider this as a fact?

The inaction of something(not worshiping) = devil "(Satan) to have victory in your life."

This is just your delusion effecting your rational thinking.
Even if your god demands worship for Satan not to achieve victory, that makes your god more evil for making such a system.
Satan is just an agent of god himself, he is doing only his bidding according to your theology.

So the only being you have to blame for all the evil in your theology is your god.
Don't try to make this system look as if it is some sick game god and the devil are playing.
There is only one player in this theology and it is your god.

He demands worship and created the devil to punish you if you don't.

Eric T's picture
Jeff, I think you fail to

Jeff, I think you fail to see that according to scripture, Satan has been given authority in this World for only a time. That is to say, it is only temporary. Just like our life on this earth is oh so temporary.

Jesus referred to him (Satan) as the "ruler of this world" (John 14:30). So, the "sick game" that you are alluding to will eventually be resolved with Christ as the victor and Satan as the defeated.

For now, you (we) are confronted with a choice: to dismiss God's eternal plan - which yes, does involve some suffering, and does involve Satan, and God's very own Son, with Humanity smack dab in the middle of it all....

Or, to get on board with Christ, and stop thinking you have the giant intellect to see a better plan that stretches throughout the whole course of Eternity, while we sit at our laptop and instill our limitless "nuggets" of atheist wisdom to the followers in this forum, for however number of years that we are given lol. jeeze Jeff...big picture time!

I am not saying believe Christians, Jeff, I am saying believe Christ. Someone as well read as yourself should know more about the basics of what He taught, and it is perfectly accessible to you.

By the way, I don't follow the Pope. And I agree with many things you have to say about organized religion and churches. But let's not get that confused with the claims of Christ and his reason for coming.

In the end, even the Pope and the churches will be Judged by Him. So, there will be no excuse for us not to follow in the way of Truth.

Many atheists' response to the previous sentence, I gather, is probably much like Pontius Pilate's was, when finding himself face to face with Christ right before his crucifixion.

Pontius simply asked, rhetorically "What is truth?"

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
"Jeff, I think you fail to

"Jeff, I think you fail to see that according to scripture, Satan has been given authority in this World for only a time. That is to say, it is only temporary. Just like our life on this earth is oh so temporary."

"Satan has been given authority in this World for only a time."
By whom?

Your god right?

So since he is omniscient, he planned this whole thing from start, it is really a sick game of god, there is no other way to look at it.

"I am not saying believe Christians, Jeff, I am saying believe Christ."
I am not saying believe me but believe a character I invented.
The church is not saying believe them but believe Christ which they invented less then 2000 years ago.

"By the way, I don't follow the Pope."
You do, just not this current one, Christ character was the first fictional pope then peter, etc..
Many popes along history had their own changes to the theology, check history, you can follow which denomination you want, you will always follow a version which comes from a pope.

"stop thinking you have the giant intellect"
I am not the guy who thinks to know the mind of god and tries to map it on a human invention you call Christ in a theistic format that does not even conform to logic.

A deistic god cannot be said that it does not exist but a theistic god is proven by logic that cannot possibly exist.

Eric T's picture
..."Christ's character was

..."Christ's character was the first fictional Pope, then Peter, etc."

So, who do you think "invented" the "character" of Christ, since your contention is that He and his story are pure fiction?

Do most atheist scholars claim that Jesus is a fictional character?

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
The question should be turns

The question should be turns to say:

Is there a single scholar that claims that the Jesus in the Gospels that was walking on water, rising from the dead healing the blind, etc... was a real historical character?
Is there even 1?

What they say is that probably a guy named Jesus existed and they aren't scientific about it either.
They are mostly christian historians.

Here is a christian historian that turned atheist after studying history:

So if you like your Christianity and hate the truth don't study history.

ThePragmatic's picture
Most christians don't know

Most christians don't know more than their local pastor or their favorite telepreacher has told them. That gigantic block of christians base their entire belief on someone elses cherry picking. They don't even care to find out the history of their own "holy" scriptures, even though they base most of their life on .

The sad truth is that atheists/agnostics score way higher on knowledge on religions than religious do.

I don't know if it is sad or hilarious that to see theists display such ignorance in the subject they are trying to debate.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
I agree, their local Church

I agree, their local Church is usually what people believe.

It is sad, that so many people don't know what they are, but prefer to be like mindless sheep.

Thanks for the links.

Nyarlathotep's picture
"If the story of his death

"If the story of his death were true"

They aren't. No one witnessed him saying it, and for icing on the cake: LaVey was unable to speak for the last few weeks of his life. The story is pure wishful thinking.

Eric T's picture
Nyarlathotep, people

Nyarlathotep, people witnessed and recorded things that Jesus did and said in the Bible...

But that hardly qualifies for your believing. So is the stubbornness of many an atheist.

You say the LaVey story is definitely not true because, "no witnesses". Yet you most likely discount any record or witness testimony concerning the words and life of Christ.

How convenient.

ex-christian_atheist's picture
There are no eye witness

There are no eye witness testimonies of the life or words of Christ. All the writings available are from the Bible, 40-60 years at the least after the death of Jesus, and they weren't written by any of the apostles.

There are no extra-biblical accounts of Jesus, no records of any of the miraculous events surrounding Jesus that we would expect to have been recorded, and all this despite having the writings and records of at least 126 historians contemporary to that time period. The only writings even claimed to be accounts of Jesus outside the Bible were shown to be fraudulent forgeries (Josephus' work, for example), meddled with by earlier Christians trying to "prove" Jesus existed.

Travis Hedglin's picture
Let me tell you what I know

Let me tell you what I know about the bible. It is a collection of documents written by unknown authors, with the exception of certain epistles by Paul, which were written at least 40-50 years after the supposed death of Jesus. The authors weren't witnesses, recording anything better than hearsay, and even then there is no reason to assume that they recorded the stories in an unbiased and exaggerated manner. Many of the documents appear to be rewrites of the original gospel, with additions and messages that differ from said original in small but sometimes important ways. As if that wasn't bad enough, translation errors both intentional and accidental have crept in, not to mention no small number of known forgeries that seem to pervert the meaning somewhat.

So, no, it is neither a reliable witness or record of anything but how people wrote around the second century. It is not enough, not even close to nearly enough, to substantiate the very large claims that it makes. We reject your bible for the very same reasons that we reject the "deathbed conversion" meme that is being perpetuated by so many gullible people who love rumors, because there is no reliable evidence that they did convert, can you give me some good evidence to think that they did?

Eric T's picture
I don't believe that there is

I don't believe that there is any documentation on the "deathbed" conversion...

So why would you laughingly parallel the strength of your argument with a thing, such as the life of Christ, that had been so laboriously documented?

Leap of faith perhaps lol.

Travis Hedglin's picture
Once again, we can no more

Once again, we can no more say that Jesus was laboriously documented as we can Hercules.

Eric T's picture


Lol. Travis, you crack me up :-)

cmallen's picture
Why is that funny? I mean, I

Why is that funny? I mean, I agree it's humorous; but why do you think it's funny?

Eric T's picture
Because it is hyperbole..

Because it is hyperbole...perhaps even a bit desperate. But I like Travis and his tenacity.

It reminds me of something that "nonstamp collector" guy might say. Now he's funny!

cmallen's picture
I'm not sure 'hyperbole' has

I'm not sure 'hyperbole' has the same definition in my dictionary as it does in yours. Actually, I don't think 'desperate' does either. Whatever, right?

Travis Hedglin's picture
We have as many, if not more,

We have as many, if not more, witnesses of Hercules. The only reason you find it funny is that you hold your particular document above the scrutiny we both apply to those about Hercules, your document is no more verifiable or reasonable on the whole, you just believe it is.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Eric - "Nyarlathotep, people

Eric - "Nyarlathotep, people witnessed and recorded things that Jesus did and said in the Bible..."

No they didn't. There are no contemporary sources that mention Jesus. But thanks for playing!

Eric T's picture
Wrong. Many scholars do

Wrong. Many scholars do contend that some books of New Testament are first hand accounts if not at least "contemporary" (of the same age or period).

So, by your standards Nyar, if Anton's grandson were to tell you details of his grandfather's death, I suppose you would dismiss them as not being "contemporary"?

Better still, what if it was Anton's son or daughter or spouse?

Nah, my guess is you would need to physically be there to see it, taste it, and drink it in so you could chalk it up to actually being real for you.

Even though you believe so many other things without the same degree of evidence....

Very sad, and don't let the door hit you on the way out lol.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Eric - "Wrong. Many scholars

Eric - "Wrong. Many scholars do contend that some books of New Testament are first hand accounts if not at least "contemporary" (of the same age or period)."

That is right. Some of them are first hand accounts. Of course those are the books that don't describe the details of Jesus's life, such as Romans which was written by Paul. However: Matthew was not written by Matthew, Mark was not written by Mark, Luke was not written by Luke, and John was not written by John.

Travis Hedglin's picture
1. Absolutely NONE of the

1. Absolutely NONE of the gospels were written by anyone who actually met Jesus.(Paul only had a vision)

2. The writers were working with oral traditions, hearsay, passed down by people apparently unrelated to Jesus in any way.

3. We have no guarantee that the neither the storytellers or authors weren't engaged in embellishment or exaggeration, or even if the story is actually true.

4. No one who lived at the time of Jesus appeared to notice him, or his miracles, or any of the miraculous things surrounding the tale.

5. A great many forgeries, verses in the bible and documents created or edited, exist obfuscating the origins of the religion.

Given all this, I really don't see why or how anyone is supposed to consider the book a reliable source of information about anything. IF a god existed, and it was actually interested in being believed by rational people, he would have done far better than he did in relating his message to us.

Eric T's picture
"3. ...."

"3. ...."

Travis, sorry but you can't "embellish" that Jesus Christ lived. He either did or he did not.

You can't embellish that Christ rose from the dead. He either did or he did not.

The whole heart of Christianity rests on these two claims.

If you reject the account of the Bible concerning these two things, then you most likely reject all else.

This phenomenon of wholesale rejection is strange however, because based on advanced study, science, and even archeological findings, the Bible has been substantiated from a historical perspective in many ways...

...often much to the amazement of its detractors.

Therefore (and putting the account of Jesus' story completely aside), it is interesting that the atheist could also allow himself the luxury to "cherry pick" certain parts of the Bible, strictly from a historical perspective, to support certain empirical truths...

...much like he accuses the Christian of doing, concerning the establishment of certain moral truths.

But the atheist wisely (however dishonestly) avoids doing this, so that he/she can thereby discount the Bible as a whole, and wholly discredit the Christian for believing "any of the Bible"... opposed to just the "parts" of the Bible that the atheist would themselves "believe in" and profess as factual.

So, when the Christian believes in just "part of the Bible", the atheist quickly discredits him on the basis of the whole Book itself being a work of fiction or some other fantastic argument.

...similarly, when the Christian believes in the "whole Bible", the atheist is even quicker to dismiss him on the basis of certain "parts" of the Bible that he/she would refute.

And atheists accuse Christians of "circular reasoning" lol.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.