Discoholic 🪩
Cosmic Funnies
Sade Olutola
Doug Jones
ojovivo
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
if i look back, i am lost
No title available
@theartofmadeline
art blog(derogatory)
roma★
ellievsbear
YOU ARE THE REASON
Jar Jar Binks Fan Club
The Bowery Presents
blake kathryn
Cookie Run:Kingdom Official!
Game Changer & Make Some Noise
seen from Switzerland
seen from Türkiye
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Canada
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Indonesia
seen from Iraq
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Russia
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Germany
@reflectionsinthemarshlands
Behold: How many times do I have to say that Pope Leo is bad?
Just in case you thought he was normal and not the head of the People Who Still Believe Demons Are Real.
Ah... the great fear of otherness. Or, perhaps, the reality of your influence slowly losing grip on the world.
Maybe they need to push out more anime or whatever to stay "cool" with the next generation...
Behold: Let's test these out (And regret it)
John 14: Basically Jesus telling his disciples to do what he says and shut up and quit being upset.
Psalm (Not this shit again) 18: Just some guy saying that his god is great. How's that help anyone? Does not apply to weakness at all.
Psalm (Another one? Fuck) 23: His god is like a shepherd and he is the sheep, who shuts up and doesn't ask questions. No one in a relationship with a massive power imbalance is ever lonely.
Psalm (I am being tested by this stupid fucking book) 51: Your usually "Woe is me, I'm the worst and a sinner" psalm. Real depressing shit.
Matthew 8:19-31: Jesus telling his disciples to quit being worried after he purposefully drove them into a storm and didn't do anything about it for a while.
Philippians 4:4-9: Literally just tells you to stop being anxious because of a certain god. About as useful as yelling "Calm down" at an upset person.
Colossians 3:12-17: The god exists, therefore you must be happy. Very effective. This won't fuck up anyone's mental health. Like telling a woman to smile more.
Psalm (Back to the misery pit) 91: "God is my refuge" bullshit. I'm sure if you're in an actual dangerous situation, reading this out loud will certainly help. Or it won't, because expecting this god to do anything is a sin.
Psalm (I am not stuck in the misery pit) 27: This is more about not fearing your enemies because you think an unknowable imperceptible being has taken a liking to you for some reason, but I guess they already did one for "In Danger".
Exodus 14: The god straight-up says that he's going to mind-control somebody for his own glory. If that makes you have more faith in him, you need to rethink a few things.
John 15: Jesus tells his disciples that without him they can do nothing, and if they don't remain in him, they will cast aside and burned like useless twigs. "Others" in the case must mean "Jesus". Then there's some persecution complex bullshit.
Joshua 1: The god telling Joshua that as long as he obeys his commands, no one will ever defeat him. People read things like this and think that the god is going to do these things for them, too. He will not because he either doesn't exist or doesn't care.
Psalm (One last time, into the shit) 73:21-26: More lies about the god always being with you. Also has the word "portion" in it which is my least favorite word.
Matthew 11:25-30: Jesus praising his dad, the god, for hiding evidence of himself from smart people and only revealing himself to the easily fooled, much like a conspiracy theory. This is where the lie of "My yoke is easy and my burden is light" comes from. Because everywhere else in the Gospels, Jesus tells his followers that following him will literally get them killed and thrown in jail and spit on and mocked and cancelled on Twitter, which is the worst part.
Overall Evaluation: It's like someone saw one of the many Looney Tunes cartoons where Bugs Bunny slaps somebody else while saying "Eeeeeh, SHADDUP!" and thought that was the correct way to treat people.
Why can't i find fanart on Lucifer from Paradise lost. Guys he literally invented the sad boy hot satan trope. 😔😔😔
i mean i can think of at least one fanart of lucifer from paradise lost. its made by this niche lil artist you've probably never seen it
I'd say anything inspired by this counts as an official tribute. Would this suffice as "fanart"?
Art by Dorian Keeffe:
https://13forest.com/painting-mixed-media#/dorian-keeffe/
Hi there,
I'm an Orthodox Christian and I was looking through your posts. If you don't mind, I would love to hear your story because having a different perspective doesn't mean I shouldn't consider yours with love and respect. But of course, no pressure
Hello,
Sure, I don't mind sharing experiences and perspectives with people. What exactly would you be interested in knowing? I think it would also be beneficial if we had a mutual exchange. Feel free to share your story as well.
The jokes write themselves.
How the United States feels right now for anyone with a little too much melanin and awareness...
It's legitimately hilarious how a lot of Christians (as well as Muslims, Jews, etc, but that's another post) barely EVER do anything to disprove Deism. They make soooo many arguments about the existence of a God but conveniently never prove the existence of their God.
"Everything has a cause, so the universe must have a cause!" Deism. "Fine Tuning Argument!" Deism. "Anselmian Ontological Argu-" Deism.
"Modal Ontological Argu-" Deism. "Moral Argum-" Deism.
"Argument From Desir-" Deism.
"God of the Gaps-" Deism.
"You need God for knowledge and reaso-" Deism.
"Argument from conciousne-" Deism. "Just look at the trees-" Deism.
The only things left are the "fulfilled prophecies" in the bible, which are nearly all 1. not prophecies, 2. easily faked, or 3. changed to look like they were fulfilled. not to mention all of the prophecies that were simply just NOT fulfilled, like Jesus being named Emmanuel or you could go with the historical evidence for Jesus, including the "300 eyewitnesses" that were all only mentioned in the bible, the empty tomb there is no evidence for (and was not even mentioned in the earliest christian writing) and the apostles willing to die- an aspect shared by cults and religions across the globe
and then the only thing left is Pascal's Wager- the worst argument for God, described by Christians as "not even an argument for God", is impossible to functionally believe in and could apply to any religion or fairy tale or made up story, not just Christianity.
Do any Christians have a response?
Scholastic theology generally argues for a God that the universe continuously depends upon for its existence. Aquinas’ fifth way, which argues for God on the basis of the directed-ness of nature, is easily misread as supporting an external teleology. In actuality, it's an attempt to argue for an internal teleology belonging to all living things on the basis that their ostensible ordinators, in particular in the case of unintelligent organisms, do not provide an adequate explanation for their teleology.
Of course there is the famous first way and that's horribly misinterpreted and even when it's not misinterpreted it's often preemptively dismissed by the existential inertia objection. Then there is the simultaneity of local motion issue, which is another misconception. The first way is best explained in combination with the fourth way because God acts through the form of the object.
In the end it all comes down to whether or not one accepts a brute fact approach to metaphysics. I think it's impossible to do so while committed to nominalism, and difficult to do so while committed to realism. A nominalist brute fact approach is doomed by the multitude of explanations needed. In the latter case–that of realism–one would have to swerve pretty hard to avoid the theistic complications.
I was going to leave it alone... but I'll bite.
I think there are a few problems with the way you’re framing Aquinas’ scholastic theology here, especially the idea that the universe “continuously depends” on a god and that the Fifth Way points to some kind of intrinsic teleology that can’t be accounted for by natural causes.
First, the whole notion that the universe needs a continuous sustaining cause isn’t an argument—it’s just baked into the Thomistic worldview. Modern physics doesn’t treat existence as something that has to be constantly “held in being” by an external agent. Things persist because that’s simply how physical laws describe their behavior. Saying “a god sustains them” doesn’t give us any additional explanatory power; it just relocates the mystery to a supernatural entity whose own existence isn’t explained.
Second, Aquinas’ appeal to teleology assumes an Aristotelian framework that modern science moved beyond centuries ago. Physics and biology don’t invoke final causes to explain anything—we explain regularities and functions mechanistically. The fact that natural phenomena behave in consistent ways doesn’t imply they are “aiming at” ends or that an intelligence is directing them. Regularity follows from the structure of the physical world, not from a mind.
Related to that, the idea that unintelligent organisms or natural objects require an external intellect to explain their “directedness” is undermined by evolutionary biology. Organisms display goal-like behavior because natural selection produced systems that behave in adaptive ways. That’s teleonomy, not teleology—purpose-like behavior emerging from blind processes, not from built-in, metaphysical purposes. Aquinas didn’t have access to these explanations, but we do.
If the claim is that things have internal teleology, that’s also questionable. What look like “ends” in nature can be entirely described in terms of physical dispositions, energy gradients, and evolutionary history. A falling stone isn’t pursuing the “end” of the Earth’s center; it’s responding to gravity. A cell isn’t “aiming” at replication; it behaves according to biochemical interactions refined by natural selection. Teleology is just not needed to describe these processes.
Even if we hypothetically granted that nature had intrinsic teleology, it still wouldn’t follow that the source is a divine intellect. That’s a leap from “there appears to be order or directedness” to “therefore god.” The argument conflates the descriptive regularity of natural phenomena with intentional purpose—as if because things behave consistently, they must be following a plan. That’s a significant logical jump, and not one most non-theists accept.
I’d also add that modern physics further complicates the claim that unintelligent things always act “toward determinate ends.” Quantum mechanics introduces genuine indeterminacy, which doesn’t sit comfortably with the rigid teleological interpretations Aquinas relied on. Nature isn’t as neatly directed as the argument assumes.
So from a naturalistic standpoint, the Fifth Way is not “misread” as an argument for external teleology; the problem is that its underlying metaphysics no longer line up with what we know about how the world works. The Thomistic framework assumes teleology and then concludes god; but if you don’t accept those assumptions, the argument doesn’t get off the ground.
Ok, to keep it simple...
We don’t need internal teleology to explain nature. We don’t need a divine sustainer to explain existence, and we don’t need a guiding intellect to explain biological order. Science already gives us natural mechanisms that account for the very features Aquinas thought required god.
"First, the whole notion that the universe needs a continuous sustaining cause isn’t an argument—it’s just baked into the Thomistic worldview. Modern physics doesn’t treat existence as something that has to be constantly “held in being” by an external agent. Things persist because that’s simply how physical laws describe their behavior. Saying “God sustains them” doesn’t give us any additional explanatory power; it just relocates the mystery to a supernatural entity whose own existence isn’t explained.
It's because Aristotle's views and, by extension, Aquinas’s views are based on the present exists in a way the past and future do not. If either the past or future are as real as the present, cognition and logical argument would not be possible. I guess one could say that all objects have existential inertia but one would have to ask where that existential inertia comes from and it would be less sensible to assign it as a feature of each object than have it derive from one source even if that source is mysterious. (This goes back to the brute fact thing.) Also that source isn’t necessarily mysterious because the source is characterized as existentiality itself. Not surprisingly, I've heard the first way described in a way that resembles the fourth way, the one that says that all forms derive from one form and are thus derivative of it. I don't think the ‘modern physics’ objection holds much weight because the proofs are derived from the most basic of facts and Modern physics more describes behavior then explains it.
Second, Aquinas’ appeal to teleology assumes an Aristotelian framework that modern science moved beyond centuries ago. Physics and biology don’t invoke final causes to explain anything—we explain regularities and functions mechanistically. The fact that natural phenomena behave in consistent ways doesn’t imply they are “aiming at” ends or that an intelligence is directing them. Regularity follows from the structure of the physical world, not from a mind.
Related to that, the idea that unintelligent organisms or natural objects require an external intellect to explain their “directedness” is undermined by evolutionary biology. Organisms display goal-like behavior because natural selection produced systems that behave in adaptive ways. That’s teleonomy, not teleology—purpose-like behavior emerging from blind processes, not from built-in, metaphysical purposes. Aquinas didn’t have access to these explanations, but we do.
Final cause is more concerned with a range of outcomes rather than a strict outcome. And Aquinas was all like “if teleology stems from nature, where does nature get it?” Of course, that concerns external teleology as well as internal teleology. Internal teleology is justified by the existence of traits or features that are not present in the mere combination of an organism’s parts. Of course, this is true for numbers and objects in anything that is not a mere composite of two different things with their own forms. I mean, this goes back again to the Fourth Way and of course some people have advanced the argument that all the ways are more or less the same way just with different ways of looking at it.
Skipping to the end because most of the points I’ve addressed already, Either every individual object has its own ability to sustain itself–in many cases reproduce itself–All without explanation, or this derives from some force which is difficult to describe in anyway other than as Aristotle's unmoved mover.
Still, I must admit that you should wisdom and attacking the base of the overall scholastic schema Because aside from individuation I would argue this its weakest link or at least the part that has like the most obscure exclamations
Hey, no offense, but this is typically why I do not dive into these topics too much with theists. Our perspectives are different because our starting conception of how we determine truth is different.
However, I think this brings out the real crux of the disagreement, which isn’t about any single “Way” but about what counts as a good explanation and what assumptions we’re each allowed to build in.
A lot of what you’re saying hinges on presentism and the idea that persistence itself needs a sustaining cause. But those are not empirical conclusions; they’re metaphysical starting points. Presentism is one option among several (eternalism and the growing block I think are taken very seriously in contemporary metaphysics), and none of these alternatives undermine cognition or logical reasoning. So when you frame the Aristotelian view as necessary for thought itself, it looks less like an argument and more like a reassertion of the framework you’re trying to defend.
Likewise, the claim that objects need something external to account for their “existential inertia” assumes the very thing under dispute — that persistence is metaphysically in need of grounding rather than a default feature of the world. In physics, persistence doesn’t need a separate explanation beyond the laws that describe how objects behave. Saying “those laws themselves require an external source” is a move that’s metaphysically optional, not forced on us by evidence. And appealing to a single unmoved mover as the source of all existential inertia isn’t obviously simpler: a single, unexplained entity with unlimited causal power carries more metaphysical weight than a universe in which objects persist according to their natures.
On the teleology side, the same issue arises. When you say internal teleology is justified because wholes exhibit properties not reducible to the sum of their parts, that’s interpreting emergent behavior through Aristotelian categories. It’s not evidence that nature is teleological; it’s a particular philosophical vocabulary for describing patterns. Modern explanations of those same patterns — emergence, selection, self-organization, dispositions, and so on — don’t require ends or purposes. So the disagreement isn’t over whether traits arise; it’s over whether “purpose” is the right conceptual tool for describing them.
That’s why the critique of “modern physics only describes behavior” doesn’t land for me. Description is explanation, in the modern sense — identifying the mechanisms, regularities, and laws that reliably produce phenomena. Those explanations are empirically testable and predictive. Aristotelian teleology and the claim that existence must be continuously bestowed are not. They operate at the level of metaphysical interpretation, not observation.
So I think we’re really dealing with different standards of evidence and different ideas of what an explanation should look like. From the Aristotelian-Thomistic standpoint, teleology and a sustaining cause are built into the conceptual architecture, and the argument is that everything else must fit that architecture. From a naturalistic standpoint, teleology is a hypothesis about the world, not a bedrock assumption, and its job is to compete with other hypotheses on explanatory power. Likewise, the idea of a sustaining cause is not a default — it needs to be argued for, not assumed because the alternative feels unintuitive.
If we start with Aristotelian premises, we naturally end up with an Aristotelian conclusion. But if we don’t grant those premises — if we don’t assume presentism, or intrinsic teleology, or the necessity of a sustaining cause — the argument doesn’t get off the ground. And that’s why I think the real point of divergence isn’t about any particular "Way" but about the underlying methodology in how we decide what counts as evidence, what counts as explanation, and what assumptions we’re allowed to build in from the start.
I'm not versed in metaphysical concepts, but it was still fun to try and see if we could understand each other.
It's legitimately hilarious how a lot of Christians (as well as Muslims, Jews, etc, but that's another post) barely EVER do anything to disprove Deism. They make soooo many arguments about the existence of a God but conveniently never prove the existence of their God.
"Everything has a cause, so the universe must have a cause!" Deism. "Fine Tuning Argument!" Deism. "Anselmian Ontological Argu-" Deism.
"Modal Ontological Argu-" Deism. "Moral Argum-" Deism.
"Argument From Desir-" Deism.
"God of the Gaps-" Deism.
"You need God for knowledge and reaso-" Deism.
"Argument from conciousne-" Deism. "Just look at the trees-" Deism.
The only things left are the "fulfilled prophecies" in the bible, which are nearly all 1. not prophecies, 2. easily faked, or 3. changed to look like they were fulfilled. not to mention all of the prophecies that were simply just NOT fulfilled, like Jesus being named Emmanuel or you could go with the historical evidence for Jesus, including the "300 eyewitnesses" that were all only mentioned in the bible, the empty tomb there is no evidence for (and was not even mentioned in the earliest christian writing) and the apostles willing to die- an aspect shared by cults and religions across the globe
and then the only thing left is Pascal's Wager- the worst argument for God, described by Christians as "not even an argument for God", is impossible to functionally believe in and could apply to any religion or fairy tale or made up story, not just Christianity.
Do any Christians have a response?
Scholastic theology generally argues for a God that the universe continuously depends upon for its existence. Aquinas’ fifth way, which argues for God on the basis of the directed-ness of nature, is easily misread as supporting an external teleology. In actuality, it's an attempt to argue for an internal teleology belonging to all living things on the basis that their ostensible ordinators, in particular in the case of unintelligent organisms, do not provide an adequate explanation for their teleology.
Of course there is the famous first way and that's horribly misinterpreted and even when it's not misinterpreted it's often preemptively dismissed by the existential inertia objection. Then there is the simultaneity of local motion issue, which is another misconception. The first way is best explained in combination with the fourth way because God acts through the form of the object.
In the end it all comes down to whether or not one accepts a brute fact approach to metaphysics. I think it's impossible to do so while committed to nominalism, and difficult to do so while committed to realism. A nominalist brute fact approach is doomed by the multitude of explanations needed. In the latter case–that of realism–one would have to swerve pretty hard to avoid the theistic complications.
I was going to leave it alone... but I'll bite.
I think there are a few problems with the way you’re framing Aquinas’ scholastic theology here, especially the idea that the universe “continuously depends” on a god and that the Fifth Way points to some kind of intrinsic teleology that can’t be accounted for by natural causes.
First, the whole notion that the universe needs a continuous sustaining cause isn’t an argument—it’s just baked into the Thomistic worldview. Modern physics doesn’t treat existence as something that has to be constantly “held in being” by an external agent. Things persist because that’s simply how physical laws describe their behavior. Saying “a god sustains them” doesn’t give us any additional explanatory power; it just relocates the mystery to a supernatural entity whose own existence isn’t explained.
Second, Aquinas’ appeal to teleology assumes an Aristotelian framework that modern science moved beyond centuries ago. Physics and biology don’t invoke final causes to explain anything—we explain regularities and functions mechanistically. The fact that natural phenomena behave in consistent ways doesn’t imply they are “aiming at” ends or that an intelligence is directing them. Regularity follows from the structure of the physical world, not from a mind.
Related to that, the idea that unintelligent organisms or natural objects require an external intellect to explain their “directedness” is undermined by evolutionary biology. Organisms display goal-like behavior because natural selection produced systems that behave in adaptive ways. That’s teleonomy, not teleology—purpose-like behavior emerging from blind processes, not from built-in, metaphysical purposes. Aquinas didn’t have access to these explanations, but we do.
If the claim is that things have internal teleology, that’s also questionable. What look like “ends” in nature can be entirely described in terms of physical dispositions, energy gradients, and evolutionary history. A falling stone isn’t pursuing the “end” of the Earth’s center; it’s responding to gravity. A cell isn’t “aiming” at replication; it behaves according to biochemical interactions refined by natural selection. Teleology is just not needed to describe these processes.
Even if we hypothetically granted that nature had intrinsic teleology, it still wouldn’t follow that the source is a divine intellect. That’s a leap from “there appears to be order or directedness” to “therefore god.” The argument conflates the descriptive regularity of natural phenomena with intentional purpose—as if because things behave consistently, they must be following a plan. That’s a significant logical jump, and not one most non-theists accept.
I’d also add that modern physics further complicates the claim that unintelligent things always act “toward determinate ends.” Quantum mechanics introduces genuine indeterminacy, which doesn’t sit comfortably with the rigid teleological interpretations Aquinas relied on. Nature isn’t as neatly directed as the argument assumes.
So from a naturalistic standpoint, the Fifth Way is not “misread” as an argument for external teleology; the problem is that its underlying metaphysics no longer line up with what we know about how the world works. The Thomistic framework assumes teleology and then concludes god; but if you don’t accept those assumptions, the argument doesn’t get off the ground.
Ok, to keep it simple...
We don’t need internal teleology to explain nature. We don’t need a divine sustainer to explain existence, and we don’t need a guiding intellect to explain biological order. Science already gives us natural mechanisms that account for the very features Aquinas thought required god.
I recently came across this video of some Satanists and Christians discussing things like morality, life, meaning, etc.
The Satanists do seem well grounded and do present their perspectives on Satanism with some thought behind it.
The Christians also tried to best to understand, but you will notice that we live in vastly different worlds.
This discussion highlights what it means when a group of people who live in a post-religious (or post-atheistic) world and those who hold on to a traditional notion of religion.
It's a little more than an hour long, but it's worth the listen if you want to better understand our point of view.
Grab some popcorn.
Hail Satan.
I have always enjoyed this quote. It brings into perspective the history of all the gods we do not take seriously anymore. Moreover, it always reminds me of the "dead" or unknown gods that have been lost to history.
One day, yahweh will also be a footnote to human history...
🜏 Three Faces of Tumblr Satanism:
Sex, Violence, and the Wounded Faithful
Tumblr’s corners of "theistic" or spiritual Satanism are rarely monolithic. What unfolds instead are microcultures that use the figure of Satan — or Lucifer — to wrestle with identity, trauma, and rebellion. From the erotic to the militant to the mystically heartbroken, these self-styled Satanists are performing something deeply human. It's a search for power, belonging, and meaning against a backdrop of cultural taboo.
The Erotic Satanist:
Desire as Devotion
For some (or most), Satan becomes an avatar of liberation through pleasure. Their blogs overflow with sexual ritual, kink aesthetics, and invocations that turn the forbidden into sacred play. What outsiders see as hedonism is often the reclaiming of bodily autonomy and spiritual agency. As Per Faxneld observes, “Sex and Satan seem utterly entwined in contemporary culture” (The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity, 2012). Here, eroticism is theology — a rebellion not against God alone but against shame itself. This, however, doesn't correspond with a wider concept of Satanism. As in, the appeal to worship "Satan" via the flesh most often than not ends with a superficial climax. I personally suspect the erotic nature here is more subconsciously kink than anything else.
The “Traditional” or violent theist:
Power Through "Darkness"
Another strain borrows from fascist symbolism and pseudo-esoteric “traditions,” dressing bigotry in occult robes. These individuals conflate Satanic rebellion with racial purity or authoritarian power. Psychologically, this tendency channels personal insecurity into mythic aggression — using Satan not as liberator, but as weapon. As Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke warned, “Fantasies can achieve a causal status once they have been institutionalized in beliefs, values, and social groups” (The Occult Roots of Nazism, 2003). These are less spiritual movements than performances of control and grievance, rendered in black sigils and borrowed runes. I have written a little more about these individuals here:
💬 2 🔁 6 ❤️ 16 · A note on hate groups in the “spiritual” Satanic Community... After being on this platform for a little while, it see
The Wounded Theist:
Lucifer’s Fall as Mirror
Then there are those who rage not against religion, but from inside its ruins. Their posts thrum with devotion and fury — defending Lucifer as a tragic redeemer while constantly condemning Satanists as faithless pretenders. Many show signs of religious trauma: loss, anger, and a need for spiritual coherence after leaving rigid belief systems. Psychologist Marlene Winell describes this as Religious Trauma Syndrome, where survivors “strive to catch up socially, cognitively, and emotionally” after faith-based harm (Winell, 2011). In Lucifer’s rebellion, they see their own — not evil, but exile. These types are quite rare, but loud in how they write blogs emotionally and frequently. Two great elements for the algorithms to pick up on.
Together, these currents form a digital pantheon of pain, performance, and personal myth-making. Tumblr, with its anonymity and aesthetic freedom, becomes both altar and confessional — a place to unmask desire, rage, and belief beneath the shadow of the Morning Star. I write this plainly and as neutral as possible so that those who wonder the LHP could recognize what they may see. As a social scientist and a Satanist, this little experience here on this platform needed to be documented. As always, there is far more to Satanism than could scratch the surface in any of these three examples. However, I always recommend a critical thinking element when navigating these circles.
This is, ironically, but another blog on Tumblr. So, don't listen to me.
Read and learn for yourselves instead:
Faxneld, Per, & Jesper A. Petersen (eds.). The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity. Oxford University Press, 2012.
Dyrendal, Asbjørn, James R. Lewis, & Jesper A. Petersen. The Invention of Satanism. Oxford University Press, 2016.
Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. The Occult Roots of Nazism. New York University Press, 2003.
Suler, John. “The Online Disinhibition Effect.” CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2004.
Winell, Marlene. “Religious Trauma Syndrome.” Cognitive Behaviour Therapist, 2011.
That is all.
Hail Satan.
In my years of researching the question of if God is real or not, I have never felt so close yet so far at the same time.
I'm sorry to hear about this problem that you seem to be having. I would spend perhaps too much time writing out how to best facilitate a conversation to bring you a new perspective. However, I believe Darante LaMar can give some insight.
He was a Pastor, long time christian, and serious about his faith. Now, after much consideration, he is an Atheist.
I post this video not to discourage but rather to open new doors. Take a moment, listen, and reflect. If this gets you to think critically, then watch his other vids.
Hope it helps.
On Halloween and Satanism
Halloween has always held a special place within both the Church of Satan (CoS) and The Satanic Temple (TST). For many Satanists, it’s more than just a day of costumes and candy—it’s a celebration of imagination, indulgence, and authenticity. The Church of Satan regards Halloween as one of its most important holidays, a night when people can freely express their inner selves and embrace the darker aspects of human nature without shame. The Satanic Temple also recognizes this time as an opportunity to challenge fear, superstition, and conformity. Both perspectives see Halloween as a symbolic moment when the line between the real and the mythical fades, inviting us to celebrate individuality and the beauty of mystery.
The themes of darkness and fear that surround Halloween deeply resonate with Satanic philosophy. In Satanism, darkness isn’t seen as something evil or negative—it represents introspection, power, and self-discovery. Facing our fears allows us to understand ourselves better and to grow from those experiences. The imagery of Halloween, with its shadows, ghosts, and playful eeriness, reflects this same journey. It reminds us that what we often fear holds the key to deeper wisdom and freedom. Indulging in the spooky and mysterious is not about negativity, but about embracing the fullness of our nature and taking pride in the courage to explore what others might avoid.
Celebrating Halloween as a Satanist can take many forms. Some might choose to perform a ritual focusing on transformation, indulgence, or personal empowerment. Others might prefer a lively Halloween party, complete with costumes and creative expression. What truly matters is the intent—to honor the self, celebrate our individuality, and embrace the darkness within and around us. Whether it’s a solemn reflection or a joyful night of revelry, Halloween is a powerful reminder for Satanists that the dark is nothing to fear. Instead, it is something to explore, enjoy, and ultimately, to embrace.
How are you celebrating Halloween?
Stay spooky, everyone, and Happy Halloween!
Hail Satan.
I don’t really care if your a liberal or progressive Christian. It doesn’t undo the hurt many have faced at the hands of the church, and you need to learn how to deal with people talking about it without going “but not ALL Christians”
There is a difference between christians and the church. That said, the concept of Christianity envelopes both. The millions that have died under this belief via colonialism and those who have trauma won't necessarily care to separate the difference. The "progressive" christians need to understand this before they really make any progress with us.
Reconcile with the dark truth of your faith.
Then come back to us.
Self-deification and god complexes in Satanism.
Thanks to @thewisesatanist for this one!
One of the most empowering ideas in Satanism is self-deification. At first glance, that word sounds huge, but it’s really about realizing that gods are human inventions. As LaVey points out in The Satanic Bible, man has “created all the gods out of his own necessity” which means the divine has always come from us. That flips religion on its head. Instead of praying to something external, we can recognize that the power we seek has been within us all along. To “become a god” doesn’t mean pretending we’re omnipotent it’s a tool for healing, growth, and reclaiming authorship over our own lives. It’s the reminder that I am the creator, I am the one who shapes my destiny. The solution to using this concept well is to see it as symbolic empowerment. We don’t need thrones or halos, just the understanding that we write our own script and don’t need external validation from invisible sky beings.
But there’s also a real danger if we twist that idea into something unhealthy. If I start to believe that only I am divine and forget that everyone else has the same potential, I fall into arrogance, one of the Nine Satanic Sins. That kind of attitude puts me right back into the same trap as organized religion, where one group claims superiority over the rest of humanity. The Church of Satan often references the “alien elite,” but that doesn’t mean every Satanist is automatically superior. It’s about those who rise above through excellence, creativity, and willpower. Even then, the worth of others can’t be dismissed. A useful checkpoint here is LaVey’s principle: “Indulgence, not compulsion.” It’s fine to indulge in calling ourselves gods, but the moment we start believing in literal divinity, demanding praise, or imagining superiority, we’re falling into self-delusion. The solution is to ground ourselves in indulgence while rejecting compulsion, enjoy the role of “god” without confusing it for a reality.
And this isn’t just personal as god complexes have shown up in Satanic leadership, too. Whether in TST, CoS, or the countless self-proclaimed “reverends” who self-publish nonsense, titles and recognition too often become thrones of ego. This is where another of the Nine Satanic Sins, forgetfulness of past orthodoxies, comes into play. If Satanic leaders start chasing followers, demanding authority, or treating their words like gospel, they’re no different from the priesthoods we walked away from. LaVey himself wrote, “Satanism has been misinterpreted as a religion of followers, when it is instead a religion of leaders.” But those leaders aren’t meant to be worshipped they’re meant to inspire self-leadership. The solution here is vigilance: remember that Satanism should remain a post-religious religion. Leaders should encourage self-praise and self-mastery, not demand loyalty. Otherwise, the philosophy collapses back into the very orthodoxy it was created to reject.
The only reason I reference The Satanic Bible so often is because many of these answers are already there if we take the time to look. That doesn’t mean the book, or LaVey himself, should be worshipped. Far from it. But it is a valuable tool for reflection, a mirror that helps us refine our philosophy, avoid old traps, and remember why Satanism was never meant to be another hierarchy of blind followers.
That's all for now.
Hail Satan.
A note on Lesser and Greater Magic
In contemporary Satanism, "magic" is not supernatural but psychological theater. It is a way of channeling will, emotion, and intent. Anton LaVey defined it simply as “The change in situations or events in accordance with one’s will, which would, using normally accepted methods, be unchangeable.” Within his system, ritual magic is called “Greater Magic,” and manipulative, everyday applications are called “Lesser Magic.” In contrast, Aleister Crowley spelled his occult practice as "magick" to distinguish it from stage illusions, emphasizing spiritual transformation and communion with higher forces. LaVey dismissed this metaphysical framing, instead grounding Satanic magic in carnal, emotional, and psychological experience. For Satanists, ritual and manipulation work not because of unseen spirits but because of the power of symbolism, psychology, and the ability to influence perception.
What is Greater Magic?
Greater Magic is defined in the Satanic Bible as Ritual magic. It consists of formalized rites and highly symbolic ceremonies designed to channel and release deep emotions. Within the Church of Satan (CoS), these are usually private, controlled rituals performed for catharsis or focused intent. The Satanic Temple (TST), however, often uses ritual as a public act, performed for political or cultural impact as much as for individual expression. Their ceremonies function as activist theater, intended to provoke thought and challenge religious privilege. While CoS emphasizes ritual as an internalized psychodrama, TST highlights its external, performative dimension, yet both rely on the power of ritual to influence minds, whether inwardly or outwardly.
What is Lesser Magic?
Lesser Magic, as defined in The Satanic Bible, is non-ritual or manipulative magic, which consists of the wile and guile obtained through various devices and contrived situations, which when utilized, can create ‘change, in accordance with one’s will.’ For CoS, this is exalted as a practical skill. It is the art of seduction, persuasion, and applied psychology in everyday life. It draws upon appearance, demeanor, and insight into human behavior to bend circumstances to one’s advantage. In TST, while less emphasized, a form of Lesser Magic emerges in their campaigns as the provocative ads, memes, and media stunts that use imagery and satire to shift public discourse. Thus, while CoS cultivates Lesser Magic as personal craft and TST wields it as political provocation, both could be argued to express LaVey’s principle that magic is a carnal tool of influence rooted in human psychology.
P.S., I recognize that some members of TST would not utilize these terms in the attempt to distinguish themselves from CoS. However, it is quite hard to avoid the historical linage of Satanic Magic, particularly if it is replicated under a different context.
Well, that's all for now. Just a little brief description on both and how the main organizations utilize them.
Hail Satan.
In Satanism, there is no god above the Self. No savior to kneel to, no divine calendar to obey.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧, 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲𝐫𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐲𝐭𝐡. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞.
Anton LaVey placed the birthday at the center of Satanic ritual not out of vanity, but as a deliberate rejection of spiritual guilt and external worship.
While traditional religions ask you to honor the births and deaths of others, often strangers or long-dead figures of doctrine, Satanism invites you to honor the only life you truly possess: your own.
Your birthday marks the moment you became a conscious force, a mind, a will, a body in motion.
To celebrate it is to affirm:
— I exist.
— I matter.
— I am the highest authority in my universe.
This isn’t narcissism. It’s lucid self-respect.
You are not the servant of the cosmos; you are its participant, its challenger, its artist.
To the Satanist, the birthday becomes a ritual of indulgence, of reflection, of carnal joy. It is the Sabbath of the Self, a holiday not dictated by myth but earned by your presence.
You don’t need permission to be sacred. Your life is the altar.
Satanism is rarely acknowledged as a religion that celebrates life. This excerpt comes as a reminder of why the highest holiday exemplifies life, your life!
Hail Satan.
