>> ^shinyblurry:

Thanks, I appreciate it. Many satanists dont actually believe in the devil..that's been one my examples for how clever he really is.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I don't get Satanism. If you simply must dedicate your life to religious fiction, why side against the protagonist? It's like believing Harry Potter is real and then siding with Voldemort. Silly.
Also, for what it's worth, I don't think you are a troll, shiny. You're just a bit more subversive than the typical Christian. I like subversive, even if I don't agree with you.
>> ^shinyblurry:
That would be a Satanist
>> ^dag:
What would you call someone who believes in God, but hates her? Would they be an antitheist?






Who's clever? Satan? For having the dumbest followers on earth? Yeah, maybe you're on to something there. The Catholic church sure has racked up alot of money and power that way.

Thanks, I appreciate it. Many satanists dont actually believe in the devil..that's been one my examples for how clever he really is.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't get Satanism. If you simply must dedicate your life to religious fiction, why side against the protagonist? It's like believing Harry Potter is real and then siding with Voldemort. Silly.
Also, for what it's worth, I don't think you are a troll, shiny. You're just a bit more subversive than the typical Christian. I like subversive, even if I don't agree with you.
>> ^shinyblurry:
That would be a Satanist
>> ^dag:
What would you call someone who believes in God, but hates her? Would they be an antitheist?

I don't get Satanism. If you simply must dedicate your life to religious fiction, why side against the protagonist? It's like believing Harry Potter is real and then siding with Voldemort. Silly.

Also, for what it's worth, I don't think you are a troll, shiny. You're just a bit more subversive than the typical Christian. I like subversive, even if I don't agree with you.

>> ^shinyblurry:

That would be a Satanist
>> ^dag:
What would you call someone who believes in God, but hates her? Would they be an antitheist?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Doesn't that assume a Christian perspective? What if the God I hate is Shiva the Destroyer of Worlds?>> ^shinyblurry:

That would be a Satanist
>> ^dag:
What would you call someone who believes in God, but hates her? Would they be an antitheist?

>> ^shinyblurry:

That would be a Satanist
>> ^dag:
What would you call someone who believes in God, but hates her? Would they be an antitheist?



Deiphobe is more accurate, though if you are a yahwehphobe you may choose to ally yourself with his nemesis by worshiping him, it is entirely conceivable to be opposed to them both.

[EDIT] Downvote for trolling title [/EDIT]

That would be a Satanist

>> ^dag:
What would you call someone who believes in God, but hates her? Would they be an antitheist?

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I would ask by what standard are you judging God? By the standards of your personal morality? Well, I hate to tell you this but our righteousness is like filthy rags compared to the righteousness of God.

And you, of course, have this on authority from God himself, unless Satan wrote the bible, in which case you have been taken in by the deceiver, a possibility which you have no way to refute, except by your own prideful claims of revelation.


Satan is the reason there are over 30,000 denominations instead of one. Take catholicism for example. Almost nothing they practice is biblical. In fact much of what they do is condemned by the bible, such as their worship of Mary which is idolotry. Satan has definitely had his hand in the affairs of the church.

The only reason we know about Satan is because of the bible. If he did author the bible then he is an idiot because even I would know to not mention myself. You're a much better deceiver when no one even knows you exist. This is largely how he has deceived everyone to begin with. Satan is so clever that he has even convinced Satanists he doesn't exist. Sad but true.

6 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

*isdupe>> ^JiggaJonson:

err... didnt take eh?
dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/That-s-all-rubbish

Oh, too bad you didn't finish with the dupe... all those lovely comments and votes would have transferred over.

Oh well. I shall go to the other and vote it.

In reply to this comment by grinter:
Ok... I've revived the old vid, and am *discard ing this one
>> ^JiggaJonson:

it's a dead video now but it WAS the same clip basically.

Ok... I've revived the old vid, and am *discard ing this one
>> ^JiggaJonson:

it's a dead video now but it WAS the same clip basically.

QM,
To answer a few points of yours.

Here's the difference between you and I. I'm not a liberal. I'm not a conservative. I do not judge an idea's worth by its age. I determine its worth by rational thought. If you want to just be opposed to every new idea just because its new, and freeze your brain in the now, go ahead, but it's rationally absurd. The founding fathers you worship were considered RADICALS in their day by conventional thought. Some new ideas are good ideas. It makes no sense to say one idea is better because it's been around longer. If that were true, the world is flat instead of round.

I'm tired of conservatives acting as if the "will of the people" solely determines what is right and wrong, what should be legal and what shouldn't be. The founding fathers themselves did not believe in mob rule, never did. Legal implications of court decisions don't mean "legislating from the bench" automatically every time. Constitutional review was established for a reason. What do you want - courts to be completely neutered?!

The entire idea of inalienable rights implies that we, as a society, do NOT try to impose a unified moral code on everyone forcibly by law. We forcibly impose everyone to respect the rights of others. That's the entire point of a right. The US has never, EVER, had a unifying moral code. Most of us do share some of the same values, but those are generally vague, and when they conflict, people generally disagree about they believe is right or wrong. The point is the gov'ts job is not to impose the specific answers. Our gov't exists to solely protect rights, and to preserve a healthy society for everyone. That would include things like "you can't dump toxic sludge into land that you even own" kinds of questions.

To say that gay people cause more health problems is preposterous. So now we're gonna legislate that people can't have sex before marriage, or have unprotected sex?! It's ridiculous. You know what the unforeseen consequence is of gays being allowed to marry? More people who are gay will be honest about it, and have a chance at a happy existence instead of living a repressed miserable life. For states that allow gay marriage now, I haven't seen any significant unforeseen issue that has arisen they have to deal with. To suggest that infant mortality will rise, or suicide rates will mysteriously surge because gay marriage is now legal is absolutely preposterous.

Most families are composed of one main racial color. Does that mean interracial marriages are immoral? Most families believe in some religion. Does that make atheism immoral? Does that make the world's most predominant religion the only true one? Of course not.

And one last point - the 3% of the population is not telling the other 97% how they must define marriage. A bigoted portion of the 97% is imposing their definition of marriage on the 3% for no reason other than "we don't like your definition - we don't have a single rational reason that doesn't involve religion, which can't be used as a reason because of the 1st Amendment". If you think marrying someone from the same sex is wrong, then don't marry someone of the same sex.

I think Satanism is wrong, but I'm not out there trying to stop Satanists from worshiping. It's ridiculous!

Ah yes, this fellow is also a 'satanist'. Ha. Ha. ha.

Little did they know that he'd turn out to be Gazangh Skin-Thrasher, the world-renowned satanist.

Could not the same be said for the Christian faith?

No. Humans are naturally selfish and savage without being inculcated with better values. Is it both liberals and atheists who believe man is born "naturally" good?

These Satanists seek shock value, but the 'live and let live' part of their 'rational' philosophy didn't come from nowhere.

>> ^KnivesOut:

>> ^quantumushroom:
The irony of the Church of Satan and Satanists in general is that one obviously need not believe in anything to feel lust, rage, envy, hate, etc. Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury among all humans.
Could not the same be said for the Christian faith?
The irony of the Church of Christ and Christians in general is that one obviously need not believe in anything to feel love, compassion, joy, empathy, etc.