What religion is more suitable for us?

Post Reply New Topic

LaVey is much more 'even selflessness often has selfish motives, selfishness is might'.

If I were to read Ragnar Redbeard, are you saying his toxic argument is so persuasive I'd accept it at face-value? Or do you think I already think that way? I don't see how reading a different philosophy that I don't agree with will make my whole worldview fall apart.

With LaVey Satanism, I couldn't tell if you were supporting it, thought I was supporting it, or thought it was the same as my concept of Individualism. It's not really, his stuff is indeed rather ego-driven and sort of focuses on the Individual telling himself he's so much better than others.

Ideally, an individual wouldn't have to convince himself of his own superiority or inferiority in regards to others, and groups of people wouldn't join up to go after the one individual they've deemed inferior. Sadly, this isn't how the world works.

Hmm. I could agree that "even selflessness often has selfish motives," (as it does sometimes.. makes me think of corporate citizens green or pink washing things, doing charitable things for maximum positive PR etc) but selfishness as might? Nah. I think it's much mightier to selflessly provide than it is to hoard resources.

A young Haida man taught me a few things about their traditional culture. They're warriors; vikings of the West Coast.. paddling up and down, hunting, fishing, raiding.. but prestige & status is not bestowed upon the man who takes the most for himself - it's respectfully given to the man who does in fact make the kill or win the raid, but not because he has more for himself, but because he has more to give to others.. to provide to Elders, the weak, sick and disabled. Sure, he's physically strong, smart, swift, a true warrior & hunter in every way, but it's culturally ingrained to be the man who's able to share the most in order to have the respect of all. THAT is might.

Going back to the original question--this is not a criticism of the development of the thread, just an explanation of why my post doesn't fit with the recent ones--I've been reading a chapter of the Tao Te Ching every day lately, in several translations. I find it soothing. It seems to be more about getting comfortable with not knowing everything, and letting things happen as they're meant to do.

A Christian (maybe an unusually uptight one) told me I was going to hell for reading this, but I don't see that it's anti-religious in any way. It's just a new way to relate to the difficulties of life. Actually not so new, since it's supposed to have been written thousands of years ago, and is still widely read.

It could even lead to a religion, since to follow it or even to consider it is to soften the approach to the world, not try to control everything, and let things come instead.

That trait is ingrained into many cultures, it isn't exclusive to any one group.

It also demonstrates what LaVey is describing, you share the wealth to exchange goods for status. So-and-so is a brave warrior who shares his spoils widely; he's respectable and should be listened to; I'd like him to father my kids (or grandkids), etc.

Although he goes even deeper on that notion. People get a sense of satisfaction from being providers and from helping others. Pursuing that can be a selfish motivator too, even without considering how being good and kind can help elevate one's status and reputation.

Hmm, not such a bad thing to be a selfish motivator if it makes you feel good to make other's feel good.

Agreed, but it's worth remembering. Doing good to show off and make one feel superior to others still does good, but stuff like virtue-signalling or other social climbing behaviours should be remembered as relevant.

Potlach society benefits everyone even if it's sometimes a way that culture's needledicks have their dick measuring contests.

Buddhism is the most appealing to me but I see no good reason to believe in karma or reincarnation. I at least think it would be a good thing if it were true, which I can't say about the Abrahamic religions. And the anti-essentialism of Buddhist philosophers like Nagarjuna is more compatible with modern science than Aristotelian or Cartesian metaphysics are.

It always fascinates me how the term Naga/serpent denotes a teacher of mankind.
Hinduism all holymen and teachers are associated with the Naga
Buddhism - Buddha is protected by serpents when he reaches enlightenment
Mayans/Aztecs - flying serpent brings knowledge
East Asian - flying serpent bringer of knowledge(dragon)
Sumer/Elam - main diety was a serpent Naprisha
Christianity - the serpent gives adam knowledge
Africa - seprent appears to many tribes and gives knowledge

No certain who "us" is, since varied are we, but

https://www.pewforum.org/quiz/religious-typology/
maybe this will help

https://www.beliefnet.com/entertainment ... matic.aspx
This one has more woo-woo

Humans might be primordially wired to fear snakes, might as well hijack that to make them fear knowledge as well.

Or, conversely, it could be that most snakes aren't harmful but that one needs to master that knowledge before they can possibly learn from one.

Yes I think that's the post-christian way of looking at the serpent in religion. I'm reminded of the Australian aboriginal belief of the rainbow serpent as the creator god. This belief is very old, at least 50,000 years old given the rainbow serpent is depicted in cave paintings making it the oldest deity in the world.

^Anton LeVey's version of Satanism, actually totally turned me off to Satanism, because of some of that 'might is right' type stuff. I certainly prefer Lucien Greaves form of Satanism The Satanic Temple, it is much more reasonable and fits a lot better with what I actually believe in than LeVey's satanic bible.

Anyways, to illustrate the difference a bit, here are LeVey's Nine Satanic Statements:
-Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!
-Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
-Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
-Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!
-Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!
-Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!
-Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!
-Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
-Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!

and here are the tenents, for The Satanic Temple


-One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
-One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.
-The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
-Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
-People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
-Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.


I like The Satanic Tenents a lot better, those feel like something I can incorporate into my life. As for The Nine Satanic Statements I was actually disgusted when I was first getting interested in Satanism and read those, it is not what Satan meant/means to me.

I did the first one and it turns out I'm "solidly secular." I wasn't surprised.

I'm not sure Adam and Eve's snake would be recognisable as a snake until Jehovah punished him at the end of the story by making him "go on his belly" forever after. The name used in the original Hebrew is "nachash," whatever that means. I've seen various definitions, but when he did what he did, he doesn't seem to have been much like a snake. You need certain vocal apparatus to be able to talk, for one thing, and I don't think an actual snake could do it.