Do satanists believe in God?

Originally posted by Stregone
On the contrary. Being a Satanist means that we pursue our selfish aims and desires without guilt or shame. We like the devil because He is more like ourselves: egotisical, selfish and self-centered. We hate the god that stupid christians claim to follow, when most just pay lip service, and pursue their selfish aims and desires.

I'm afraid that your overarching plan of guiltlessly pursuing what is pleasurable will inevitably run into quite a snag. When you stand before Christ to be judged at the end of the age (assuming you refuse to believe in Christ before now and then) it will become painfully obvious that those who chose to believe in Jesus Christ were the truly intelligent ones, when they are ushered into an eternity in heaven and you are not.

I know, I know, no doubt you are going to say that the Christian God is merely a delusion and therefore Satanists are the truly intelligent ones. However, as Pascal pointed out, even a logical person would have sufficient reason to play it safe and stake his eternal future on the trueness of Christ's claims. If you are right, you and the Christian are both dead and share the same fate. Surely the Christian can afford to be foolish when he is dead... However, if the Christian is right, then you cannot afford to be wrong!

Simplistic, yes, but nevertheless true.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I'm afraid that your overarching plan of guiltlessly pursuing what is pleasurable will inevitably run into quite a snag. When you stand before Christ to be judged at the end of the age (assuming you refuse to believe in Christ before now and then) it will become painfully obvious that those who chose to believe in Jesus Christ were the truly intelligent ...[text shortened]... stian is right, then you cannot afford to be wrong!

Simplistic, yes, but nevertheless true.

Pascal was a smart guy, but his famous wager is asinine. Let me exhort you to do a little study so that you can free yourself of this delusion*.

Here's a simple video to get you started.

YouTube

Originally posted by telerion
Pascal was a smart guy, but his famous wager is asinine. Let me exhort you to do a little study so that you can free yourself of this delusion*.

Here's a simple video to get you started.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgfQhV-BbDk

Well, I guess that settles it. I guess Pascal was a deluded individual who should have become an egotistical, self-cencentered, narcassistic satan worshiper. What a waste. 😞

On a lighter note, there is still hope for you telerion!!! 😛

Originally posted by whodey
Well, I guess that settles it. I guess Pascal was a deluded individual who should have become an egotistical, self-cencentered, narcassistic satan worshiper. What a waste. 😞

On a lighter note, there is still hope for you telerion!!! 😛

Let me repeat myself. Pascal was a smart guy (very smart in fact). Unfortunately, he made a miscalculation which has become famous. Sadly, too many theists, especially American Evangelical Christians, have come to believe that since their god exists, any argument in favor of his existence must be sound. Similarly, they also seem to believe that an objection to any argument for their god's existence is an attack on their god himself. Both positions are needlessly foolish.

Even if Pascal's god exists, his argument is faulty. Pointing out that this is so, is not a denial of the existence of Pascal's god.

Originally posted by telerion
Pascal was a smart guy, but his famous wager is asinine. Let me exhort you to do a little study so that you can free yourself of this delusion*.

Here's a simple video to get you started.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgfQhV-BbDk

No offense, but that video was asinine. 🙂 It claims that believing in Jesus Christ is not a choice, which is false. Whether someone's faith is unfeigned or not is a choice. We must accept or deny Jesus Christ based on the merits of God's word alone; either we choose to believe the bible is truly God's word or we don't - there is no middle ground.

Pascal was a Christian and obviously the "God" of his wager was the Christian God. The wager he propounded was meant to underscore the risks of believing or not believing in Jesus Christ. Therefore, his reasoning is borne out by the bibilical account alone. Taking Pascal's wager out of this context is the source of the confusion surrounding his logic.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
No offense, but that video was asinine. 🙂 It claims that believing in Jesus Christ is not a choice, which is false. Whether someone's faith is unfeigned or not is a choice. We must accept or deny Jesus Christ based on the merits of God's word alone; either we choose to believe the bible is truly God's word or we don't - there is no middle gro Pascal's wager out of this context is the source of the confusion surrounding his logic.

Well the video was just an easy start. If you want something more sophisticated, pick up any philosophy of religion book written in the last century which addresses the problem. Anyway, I'll give you some of my objections. The problem is essentially a game theoretic one, but I will eschew economic terminology except in a few places. If you have not studied game theory and/or do not understand the terminology just let me know and I'll try to explain things a bit differently.


I don't think the video is too far off. You either believe, or you don't. The choice is not whether or not to believer but rather whether or not to repent/follow. Of course, it's easier for a believer to repent/follow and a non-believer to reject, but one should not confuse believing for a choice. Pascal's Wager essentially tells the non-believer to betray his feelings and repent/follow in order to maximize his expected payoff. Of course, the Christian god should know the difference so repenting without belief won't avoid hell.

Pascal also depends crucially upon weak assumptions. The first is that the non-believer loses nothing by choosing to repent/follow. Following Christ means abstaining from many things that would bring pleasure in life. The believer chooses to abstain because he thinks that "the wages of sin is death" (where "death" is a spiritual state). For the non-believer, abstaining from these actions may reduce his lifetime utility so it would be better for him to do as he wishes. The only way that Pascal's Wager can still pertain to him is if he assigns some positive probability to the event that his actions will lead him to an eternal damnation (and thus a lower expected value).
The non-believer, however, assigns zero probability to such an event, so it doesn't matter how bad the penalty would be. The optimal behavior for the non-believer is to reject the Christian god.

Second, makes the assumption that the space of possible outcomes is completely described by the union of "Jesus Christ is God" and "There does not exist any god." Such a description is almost certainly incomplete. There are an infinite number of other possible events. Here are a few examples.

1. No gods exist but all people will go to the same place when they die. Whether that place is one of damnation or bliss, it would be better to reject the Christian god.

2. A different god from the Christian one exists and will punish all those who do not believe and follow him. Thus Christians and non-believers (who do not believe in this other god) will suffer the same fate, and therefore rejecting Jesus would be a weakly dominant strategy to repenting/following because at least you'd be a little happier doing as you wish in life.

There are an infinite number of such examples and I could continue listing them until my imagination or body is exhausted. However, I will conclude with just one more: the atheist-loving god. This god highly prizes rationality. Knowing that he did not leave enough evidence in nature to support belief in him, he rewards atheists and damns all theists. In this case, Pascal's Wager is ironically reversed, and it is just as plausible as Christian god. If the theist placed any positive probability on this event, he should be terrified. Realizing then, why you are not concerned by this reverse Pascal's Wager should give you insight into why no one else is concerned about it's reciprical.

Originally posted by telerion
Well the video was just an easy start. If you want something more sophisticated, pick up any philosophy of religion book written in the last century which addresses the problem. Anyway, I'll give you some of my objections. The problem is essentially a game theoretic one, but I will eschew economic terminology except in a few places. If you have not stud d give you insight into why no one else is concerned about it's reciprical.

At bottom, though, the real issue is whether the bible is truly God's word or not. If it is truly God's word, then it is so regardless of whether someone believes it or not.

People must choose whether or not they will believe/follow Jesus Christ based on the merits of God's word alone. The bible makes it clear that faith comes by hearing; that is, hearing the word of God.

The choice of which way to believe is made within a person's secret heart of hearts, incrementally over a lifetime. Perhaps Pascal's logic is only the superficial aspect of that process? Obviously it is not meant to be the foundation of faith.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
At bottom, though, the real issue is whether the bible is truly God's word or not. If it is truly God's word, then it is so regardless of whether someone believes it or not.

People must choose whether or not they will believe/follow Jesus Christ based on the merits of God's word alone. The bible makes it clear that faith comes by hearing; that is, h ...[text shortened]... perficial aspect of that process? Obviously it is not meant to be the foundation of faith.

No, Pascal's Wager is intellectually vapid. The faster you realize it, the sooner you'll be able to look for better arguments for you belief.

The true issue is whether your deity is a real being or a personal delusion in your head. Whether the Bible is your god's handiwork or not is a secondary consideration because it first depends upon whether he even exists.

Originally posted by telerion
No, Pascal's Wager is intellectually vapid. The faster you realize it, the sooner you'll be able to look for better arguments for you belief.

The true issue is whether your deity is a real being or a personal delusion in your head. Whether the Bible is your god's handiwork or not is a secondary consideration because it first depends upon whether he even exists.

God's word and God himself go hand in hand, i.e. if the bible is God's word, then it can be said that God exists.

BTW, I'm not making an argument for my belief, and I'm certainly under no illusion that Pascal's wager is a legitimate basis for genuine faith in Jesus Christ. FYI.

Thank you for the lesson, though. Your efforts have not gone unappreciated.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I'm afraid that your overarching plan of guiltlessly pursuing what is pleasurable will inevitably run into quite a snag. When you stand before Christ to be judged at the end of the age (assuming you refuse to believe in Christ before now and then) it will become painfully obvious that those who chose to believe in Jesus Christ were the truly intelligent ...[text shortened]... stian is right, then you cannot afford to be wrong!

Simplistic, yes, but nevertheless true.

Sorry, but you speak of Christ as some kind of major assumption; some reality. I do not recognize jesus. he is not the messiah; not the son of god. if you claim the bible as an indisputable source, i object. i do not recognize the bible as a reliable source: it's full of errors and contradictions. forget Pascal; forget supposed logic. but if you want to fantasize about heaven/jesus/angels&angelic choirs--got for it!

Originally posted by epiphinehas
God's word and God himself go hand in hand, i.e. if the bible is God's word, then it can be said that God exists.

BTW, I'm not making an argument for my belief, and I'm certainly under no illusion that Pascal's wager is a legitimate basis for genuine faith in Jesus Christ. FYI.

Thank you for the lesson, though. Your efforts have not gone unappreciated.

I understand what you mean when you say that God's Word and God go hand-in-hand. After all John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Originally posted by whodey
My, my, I did'nt realize you knew Mother Theresa so well. You judge the hearts of men and women as though you were God himself.

But you made the following statement:

Also, it sounds is if Mother Theresa, in your mind, was just as "free" as you. How could this be so since she was a woman of faith?
How would you know that Mother Theresa was a 'woman of faith' unless you too are 'judging the hearts and minds' of men and women? In fact how can you know anything about anyone without doing some 'judging'?
My comments about her were based on statements made by her (or at least quoted as being made by her on Wikipedia.) Your claim that she was a 'woman of faith' is almost certainly based on rumor and third party judgments and assumptions (based possibly on the fact that she was a catholic sister for example - which actually proves nothing).

its like people who believe in god, have to believe in the devil

Originally posted by epiphinehas
....it will become painfully obvious that those who chose to believe in Jesus Christ were the truly intelligent ones, when they are ushered into an eternity in heaven and you are not.

Intelligence is not measured by seeing who made the right choice. I don't believe that choosing to believe in Jesus is a sign of intelligence and you are a fool if you think that it is. If God exists then they may be described as lucky, and possibly even wise, but 'intelligent' just doesn't work. I am not saying that they are unintelligent just that intelligence would not lead someone to believe in Jesus, and the prevailing evidence is that more intelligent people on average are less likely to believe in him.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Intelligence is not measured by seeing who made the right choice. I don't believe that choosing to believe in Jesus is a sign of intelligence and you are a fool if you think that it is. If God exists then they may be described as lucky, and possibly even wise, but 'intelligent' just doesn't work. I am not saying that they are unintelligent just that intel ...[text shortened]... iling evidence is that more intelligent people on average are less likely to believe in him.

I guess it all depends on your definition of intelligence. There are many aspects of human intelligence which can be measured. An idiot savant may be able to calculate impossible equations mentally in mere seconds, yet be unable to properly care for himself. Or an athlete may be able to deftly maneuver his body in order to effortlessly accomplish impossible feats, yet be unable to comprehend James Joyce.

Depending on how we measure intelligence, different folks will rate higher. In this case, I'm measuring intelligence on an eternal scale: who secures the most lasting benefit from their sojourn on earth? By this measure of intelligence, those who "get right with God" score infinitely higher than those who do not.

That being said, you are right: intelligence, IQ-wise, doesn't necessarily lead a person to Jesus. A man with a brilliant intellect can be likened, spiritually speaking, to a man with a large fortune. A man with a large fortune may come to trust in his riches rather than in God; similarly, a man with a brilliant intellect may come to trust in his own intelligence rather than in God.

Neither of them, having great riches or a brilliant intellect, necessarily exempt a person from entrance into God's kingdom, because that all depends on where a person places his or her trust.