Saturday, 19 March 2016

Satanism or Not?

'God' may or may not exist. 'Satan' may or may not exist. Would either, if all mankind were wiped out? Clearly those who believe in both, think they are objective realities, although they would probably have difficulty in describing or agreeing on their precise nature. That the two entities are not physical like us, would probably be a point of consensus, but are they like 'smoke' or 'photons' or 'dark matter', about which science has managed to reveal the secrets to some extent. Or are they just that part of the cosmos that defies description - a 'God and Satan of the Gaps'? The alternative is that both concepts are the product of an overactive imagination and a deep desire for explanation and meaning - a subjective projection of the complex workings of the human mind. 

In any event, the reality of any spiritual belief - in this context 'Christianity' or 'Satanism' - is of itself proof or guarantee of the beliefs implicit in them cannot be assured. Nor, conversely is it necessary that an absence of God or Satan, were that even possible to prove, be confirmation that 'Christianity' or 'Satanism' could not exist. Both can and do exist, whether the beliefs and rituals associated with them, are rational or not. The argument propounded by the contributor below, that "as there is no such thing as Satan, 'Satanism' cannot either", is therefore fallacious and probably disparaging and must be rejected. 

We know that human action flows from both rational and irrational thought processes and creates a 'worldview' that may be unique or widely shared. Our actions are deeply embedded in all the physiological and emotional processes created by inheritance, environment and 'choice'. What is important is that belief systems are accurately documented and judged according to their real consequences for other human beings and the wider world. 

There is no doubt that the wave of christianity that progressively swept the world in the past two millennia, was both good and bad for the human race and the environment depending what and whom is chosen for investigation. Maybe the same can be said for 'Satanism', although I for one find many of its aspects deeply worrying, promoting and excusing many of the worst behaviours, which must of course include in certain instances the ancient practice of the abuse and ritual slaughter of humans, including children. The failure to actually admit this exists, or of hiding it from general view, raises an ominous question mark regarding the most central, elite and hidden corridors of power and government.



  1. Here is how I would see it. Whether Satan or spirits manifest themselves has to be determined objectively. If one approaches anything, assuming certain things, then they are not objective. If I do not believe in the paranormal, whatsoever, then I am not qualified to assess it objectively. Likewise, if one approaches as a believer in the paranormal, simply because they like the idea, then they, too, are not objective and can not assess objectively. Objectivity means one is open to applying reason to make an assessment of anything said to be paranormal, supernatural, or magic or the like.

    In this regard, I ask skeptics how they explain the interesting predictions made in the Bible, that seem to describe our situation today quite well. The bible and the religion based on it, is the only relgion and source to mae very detailed prophecies, lots of them, intricately weaved together, like a mystery, awaiting our solution. There is no other religion like that. Some make a few simple broad claims but detail is a major aspect in Bible predictions, for which no other religion comes ever close. What nationality prior to the 1st/2nd centuries AD, ever saw mankind coming to a dangerous climax and possible end? In fact, even after those times, Christianity is the only one focused on a coming choice and judgement by God of that religion.

    I also find it interesting that through all other pagan religions, there seem to be common threads, as if those all had a common source for them all. The so called mystery religions and secret esoteric sort of beliefs and even the doctrine of Dualism so common in most pagan religions. where did evolutionary man get the idea that there were spirits and spirit world and that even people has spirits and joined that world at death? It does not seem like logic would go in that direction. Well, unless there were spirit manifestations. But how would we determine what is or is not a spirit manifestation? The answer is different for different people. But what I say is that if I can not explain or debunk something according to the laws of nature and physics, then I might have a possible candidate for another cause I have not previously considered.

    the mind is such that any predetermined beliefs can blind us to anything that contradicts those beliefs. Lets take flying as an example. Heavier than air flight was considered impossible by many scientists, right up thru 1908, when the Wright Brothers were flying a self-propelled plan with an engine. Some till believe it was not possible until news reached them AFTER it was first done. So a well declared belief died hard. The irony is that geese and turkey have been flying since the beginning of man. How could intelligent men not think flight possible with these birds around and known? You tell me. did spirits make the planes float? or was it science, like the many scientists who did not believe it could be done. but beliefs had to change in the face of the obvious and impossible to ignore. Prophecy is like that, too. how did some know so much so far ahead of time?

    But over oh the Xendrius channel on youtube, Xendrius has accumulated a number of videos on magicians doing "magic" that many like him and myself, do not believe are possible except by spirits. We see these are paranormal manifestations that have no scientific explanation. But if you are already firmly convinced that such is not possible, then these videos will have no impact on you. They only might stir interest to someone who approaches with a truly objective scientific mind. If a magic trick has no possible explanation in the laws of physics, then one has come interesting decisions to make or resolve. I believe in God and prophecy, but I am not irrational nor am I unfamiliar with logic and reason. So one must be able to break down the steps in a line of reason to see where either they or their opponents have gone wrong or right. This is known as a method when rules govern the process. good rules produce good results. Irrational rules will produce results impossible to trust.

  2. Thanks for that Apollo. A very thoughtful response. The interesting point you raise is that of the so-called 'innocent eye' or to what extent, even when we are viewing a topic can we be sure we are being truly 'objective'? Is the 'open mind' as 'open' as we think, or is this impossible by virtue of its 'hard wiring' and 'programming' - to use modern computer metaphor? How humans view themselves and the universe is continually expanding and evolving whilst retaining long-lasting perspectives. For those of us brought up in in a 'Christian' culture, even when not overtly religious, cannot escape its influence, much of it not even recognised. In the west we benefit from the the explosion of rational thought and thinkers from the 16th Century onwards that mediated Biblical revelation. The issue hasn't gone away despite the scientific revolution that has ensued. As I suggested there is the objective and subjective domains of human experience, the exterior and the interior realms, in the latter of which people still feel the need for faith and belief in the mystical and inexplicable. As to Biblical prophesy - that's another subject entirely, perhaps for another time!

  3. Tim Veater "Evil" is just another word for 'bad' except that we probably mean 'very bad'. We talk of 'pure evil' which of course is a contradiction in terms. In another sense 'pure' as in 100% pure. In other words 'it couldn't be more evil'. All of this is gauged against some objective standard but the objective standards have to be based on something broader and deeper if they are not to be regarded as inappropriate or inadequate. What we come back to is the application of reason as applied to ethical decisions and actions. Some believe that good and evil are personified in insubstantial entities. They may exist but I prefer to believe it resides within the realm of human thought and action and is determined by virtue of its consequences in whatever sphere they operate. Not sure if this answers your question but I hope it helps.

  4. From Wikipedia: "In Plato's Phaedrus, Socrates uses the maxim 'know thyself' as his explanation to Phaedrus to explain why he has no time for the attempts to rationally explain mythology or other far flung topics. Socrates says, "But I have no leisure for them at all; and the reason, my friend, is this: I am not yet able, as the Delphic inscription has it, to know myself; so it seems to me ridiculous, when I do not yet know that, to investigate irrelevant things."

    In other words the first and perhaps most difficult thing, is to understand ourselves. This has long been the subject of philosophers throughout the ages. Jesus talked about humans being obsessed with "outer appearance, whilst God looked upon the heart". Another view from the Bible regards, "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked"! We are continually being reminded of the desperately bad things done by humans but does it even apply to me?

    Just as self deceit is embedded in our own nature, so groups and societies also sometimes work hard to prevent the awful truth from entering the public domain particularly reputations are at stake. We may however all be part of the deception, unprepared to face up to the reality of the human psyche and its manifestations. We may wish to emulate C G Jung's mystic certainty but we should not forget he was also part of a largely discredited Freudian School of thought.

    Some have thought that God was appreciated in the silence ("Be ye silent and know that I am God") a practice still pursued by Quakers to this day, whilst others see God in nature, music or art. Whatever position we take, "real" as an adjective must always be subjective and may be very misleading. This is easily demonstrated by multiple versions of 'visual illusions' and even magicians' tricks. Psychosis we regard as indication of illness rather than an insight into reality, although R D Lang and others begged to differ.

    Famously Rene Descartes starting from fundamentals argued, "I think therefore I am". It is where we must all start, before moving on to universal imponderables. We live within ourselves and our mental coordinates programmed by our genetic inheritance and cultural environment. To be sure of something subjectively, is no guarantee of its ultimate truth or reliability. Even the scientific method may be unreliable and need modifying as knowledge increases.

    Nevertheless most humans 'feel' there is more to human existence than electrical impulses and more to the universe than matter and the physical forces that control them. There is much in human nature that runs counter with what we regard as being 'good', and 'goodness' both etymologically and ethically are of course closely related to "God", though it would be a brave person to suggest we cannot be the one without the other.

    So we must all as a first step, strive to understand and come to terms with ourselves, aiming always to do as much 'good' and as little 'harm' as it is possible to do. If in addition we are convinced of the inner presence of the ultimate spiritual force - well that must be regarded as an illuminating bonus, during this very short and vulnerable existance called "life".