Satanists are crowdfunding a statue of Lucifer to sit in front of the Oklahoma State Capitol

[ichi]

For christians satan is a representation of evil.

For non christians (and especifically atheists) satan is just a fictional character that could very well represent rebellion against the established power, because that's exactly what satan did. Ie. it's only the bad guy if you hold god as the good one.

[Joe User]

You didn't read very many of his posts in this thread, did you..?

 

I read them. 

 

 

:laugh: Thanks. It's depressing.

 

You really didn't answer my question. What gives you (or anyone else) the authority to define evil for everyone?

[dead.cell]

If we're going to worry about commandments, shouldn't we stop breaking the "thou shalt not worship any idol" as so many often do as they pray to a cross and/or statues of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and various saints?

 

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..."

 

Now, I'm no expert or anything, but I'm pretty sure we've already dun goofed. :ermm:

 

If people want to raise Satan to make a point, let them. What matters is not what we build, but how we think, how we choose to live. No statue has such power over me, you, or anyone here. If some people need to raise money and spend their time and resources in proving a point, let them. Their actions only have whatever power you entitle them to, and they cannot win an argument if there is none to be had.

 

I used to do the same thing with my ex-girlfriend. Sucks when they can't enjoy their "win". Mad? Angry? Upset? Not even once. :happy:

[LaP]

This thread is full of win.

[Houtei]

You know for what appears to be a predominately atheist forum it seems like neowin really loves its religious threads.  They always seem to last forever.  I am a religious person but i could give a crap if they want to put up a satan statue ,lol go for it.  Never understood why people get so but hurt over stuff like statues or even movies.  DONT FREAKING LOOK AT IT if it bothers you that much.  Live your own damn life and let people live theirs.

[Dashel]

My argument is that there's a consensus on what Satan represents, which allows Wikipedia, for instance, to simply define Satan as a figure of evil.

 

No offense to Satanists, but when you take the character that personifies evil in the dominant religion and make that an object of worship, you're kind of painting yourself into a corner. I don't think this would be unfair discrimination anymore than it is unfair discrimination to Neo-Nazis to repress use of the swastika.

 

I think most would agree that your argument falls down as long as you continue to view 'Satan' through the specific glass of the theistic satanists or 'Abrahamic monotheists', when its pretty clear this display is being built by the atheistic ones who don't hold him as a literal, existing figure.

 

I generally agree with your notion that we shouldn't allow 'evil' to be placed on a public pedestal and that its not discrimination to do so.  As the other poster noted however, that's more difficult than it appears so should we even try?  If it was 'inciting' bad or unlawful behavior, then maybe I would be more open to your interpretation.

 

"Particularly after the European Enlightenment, some works, such as Paradise Lost, were taken up by Romantics and described as presenting the biblical Satan as an allegory representing a crisis of faith, individualism, free will, wisdom and enlightenment. Those works actually featuring Satan as a heroic character are fewer in number, but do exist; George Bernard Shaw, and Mark Twain (cf. Letters from the Earth) included such characterizations in their works long before religious Satanists took up the pen. From then on, Satan and Satanism started to gain a new meaning outside of Christianity.^{[2]" - Wikipedia}   

[Dinggus]

Where can I donate?

[Joe User]

You know for what appears to be a predominately atheist forum it seems like neowin really loves its religious threads.  They always seem to last forever.  I am a religious person but i could give a crap if they want to put up a satan statue ,lol go for it.  Never understood why people get so but hurt over stuff like statues or even movies.  DONT FREAKING LOOK AT IT if it bothers you that much.  Live your own damn life and let people live theirs.

 

The reason why people get annoyed with the religious displays is that it's community property that they pay to maintain.

[domboy]

 

No offense to Satanists, but when you take the character that personifies evil in the dominant religion and make that an object of worship, you're kind of painting yourself into a corner. I don't think this would be unfair discrimination anymore than it is unfair discrimination to Neo-Nazis to repress use of the swastika.

 

 

Thank you! That's the part I don't get... everyone that is arguing against Satan being a figure of evil. Unless the character of Satan shows up as a figure of good in a religion that predates the oldest of the Abrahamic religions, how can you argue that he isn't a figure of evil, at least originally. Otherwise, the old testament portrayal of him is the Archangel of light that got too big for his britches (pride, the oldest sin in the book), thought he should be God, led a rebellion to try and take over, got his tail whooped in a war where he and his army got kicked out of heaven, and has been trying to undermine Gods plan on earth ever since.

 

 

If you argue Satan is supremely evil yet compared to his own creator is pretty tame that should raise a few red flags. How do you rate evil? Wrongdoing? Suffering caused? Indifference to said suffering? Or just who you're told who is the most evil character and who you should direct your mistrust and fear towards? That's pretty much the definition of propaganda. "We'll tell you who to hate and fear, and you will, because you should... Because we told you to"

 

 

 

Apparently some have decided that God is really the evil one in the biblical story and Satan's rebellion is justified, but the biblical view of good and evil is that the very essence of God is the definition of good, so anything that is opposite of that is evil. In other words, a system of moral absolutes with God as the baseline. Not sure how you can call Satan tame from a biblical perspective, as the bible describes Satan as prowling around the earth like a roaring lion, seeking those he may devour, or something like that. Yes, according to the old testament, God destroyed or had Israel destroyed a lot of evil people. I don't see much different to that than something like WW2... most see the war to stop Hitler as just because of the evil he was causing. Yes, a lot of innocent people die in wars unfortunately...

 

Is there a particular person or people you think should have been spared in some of those biblical war stories?

[FloatingFatMan]

If being a rebel makes you evil, then some of the most evil people in the world are revered by millions of people who are now free thanks to their actions. :p

 

Darn you Ghandi, you evil evil man!  Darn you too,Martin Luther King, you evil evil man, you!  Curse you Joan of Arc, you reprehensible evil woman!

[ichi]

I don't see much different to that than something like WW2... most see the war to stop Hitler as just because of the evil he was causing. Yes, a lot of innocent people die in wars unfortunately...

Had Nazi Germany won WW2 I'm pretty sure writen history and depictions of who was "good" or "bad" in that conflict would be quite different to our current views.

Anyway, all this debate is very theism centered. If we were talking about a statue of Darth Vader or Sauron I think lots would agree that it would be pretty cool, yet both are evil characters in the context of two fictional stories. Same as Satan.

[Andre S. Veteran]

Your very own quote from wiki refutes your argument.

 

Emphasis changed.  Satan is a figure of evil TO ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS.  Other religions use other figures to personify evil that aren't Satan, and atheists tend to hold actual real living (or now dead) people to be figures of "evil", such as the oft mentioned Hitler.

 

Therefore, it is disingenuous at best to claim that Satan is an overall figure of evil as it's a purely subjective issue heavily influenced by whatever the individual happens to believe in. That he's seen as a generic figure of evil in western societies such as the USA or UK just shows how ingrown Christianity has become.  Personally, I don't subscribe to that nonsense.

 

I don't think he is going to appreciate that point. I wonder what it is like living in a reality where even if people don't believe in what you do they agree with you anyway.

 

I think most would agree that your argument falls down as long as you continue to view 'Satan' through the specific glass of the theistic satanists or 'Abrahamic monotheists', when its pretty clear this display is being built by the atheistic ones who don't hold him as a literal, existing figure.

You guys keep confusing the existence of Satan with his identity. The only thing that believing in an Abrahamic religion or not changes is whether you believe Satan exists or not. Regardless of whether Satan exists or not, and hence regardless of one believes in an Abrahamic religion or not (and that you presume that I do amuses me, as I've been an atheist during a long a time and would have still defended the same point of view), Satan is a character that personifies evil. There is simply no other definition of Satan, or no other belief system in which Satan exists.

 

This is just basic logic. The nature of a thing and its existence are two separate ideas. I am appalled that I even have to point this sort of thing out.

 

You really didn't answer my question. What gives you (or anyone else) the authority to define evil for everyone?

Hum, nothing, and I don't need to. Why do you ask?

[FloatingFatMan]

There is simply no other definition of Satan, or no other belief system in which Satan exists.

 

You know, Satanists don't worship Satan as a figure of evil, so you're still wrong.

[Andre S. Veteran]

If you argue Satan is supremely evil yet compared to his own creator is pretty tame that should raise a few red flags. How do you rate evil? Wrongdoing? Suffering caused? Indifference to said suffering? Or just who you're told who is the most evil character and who you should direct your mistrust and fear towards? That's pretty much the definition of propaganda. "We'll tell you who to hate and fear, and you will, because you should... Because we told you to"

I entirely disagree with the premise that God is evil in the Bible, that's an extremely minority view and completely ill-informed. Reams of litterature were written on the topic since, well, ever, so I don't see the need to discuss this here, especially since I don't even see what that has to do with the topic. The topic is a statue of Satan, not God, so whether God is evil in the Bible is irrelevant.

 

As far as evil goes, a lot of people don't even believe in evil in the first place. At least not a supernatural force which is malevolent and trying to "tempt" humans into wrongdoing. I think this notion of evil has held humans back from determining what really makes people act immorally or seemingly without empathy. Blaming an invisible force doesn't necessitate any research or investigation, especially when someone already has a convenient solution for you to combat it (i.e. religious devotion and worship).

But that doesn't matter. Even if Satan is only a symbolic figure of evil, is a symbolic figure of evil to be allowed in the public space? Especially one that everyone recognizes as such and that many hold as a real, existing force? This makes obviously no sense.

Why does it matter if it is widely accepted? If you went to a part of the United States with a  large Muslim population and they wanted to erect Islamic iconography on public land, people would go insane. But if Islam is "widely accepted" in that area then shouldn't it be fine? I am sure there is no shortage of people who think Islam or Catholicism is "evil". In the U.S. it was once "widely accepted" that Catholicism was "evil/un-American" by the overwhelming Protestant populations.*

If only few people thought Satan was a figure of evil, then I wouldn't see any issue with a statue of him (other than perhaps utter pointlessness and waste of space); it is entirely a matter of public recognition and interpretation. That's my whole point.

 

The point of erecting a Satan statue is probably more to point out you can't favour one faith over the other. You can't value the tenets of Christianity and display them on public land which implies promotion by the state. I think it is entirely disingenuous when people, particularly people in a position of privilege (in this case, Christians), pretend they don't understand this point. Most probably do understand it, they just don't care. That is a hallmark of being privileged.

Well then the question should be whether the statue of God should be demolished, not whether the statue of another religious symbol (and another Christian one at that) should be built. 

You know, Satanists don't worship Satan as a figure of evil, so you're still wrong.

Didn't I already answer that point like 10 times already? Are you simply trying to win a war of attrition?

[FloatingFatMan]

Didn't I already answer that point like 10 times already? Are you simply trying to win a war of attrition?

 

 

No, merely trying to correct your false assertion that everyone sees Satan as a figure of evil. It's incorrect at best, a deliberate lie at worst.

[Andre S. Veteran]

No, merely trying to correct your false assertion that everyone sees Satan as a figure of evil. It's incorrect at best, a deliberate lie at worst.

I'm not sure what good it would do to repeat myself at this point, since I've already done so many times in the last few pages of this thread. If you wish to keep restating this argument like I never answered it (and you never objected anything to the replies I gave), more power to you.

[Andre S. Veteran]

I don't quite follow the what you're saying here... Surely the argument is that Hitler has had a more quantifiable, verifiable effect on people and history than Satan, a figure that a) may not exist and b) is impossible to actually determine as a root cause behind anything?

Yes, that's exactly the argument I was responding to. You're providing reasons as to why Satan should be considered fictional, but I was answering that this is nothing more than a belief regarding a religious character, that not everyone shares this belief, that many people share the opposite belief (namely, that Satan is real), and that even if Satan is fictional, being a widely recognized figure of evil is reason enough to oppose this project.

 

But it's discrimination all the same, is it not? That situation would be reversed in other parts of the world, i.e. in Middle East countries, (and the situation is comparable to problems in non-religious matters as well) but it still doesn't make that discrimination right does it? 

First, in this particular case, it wouldn't be discrimination against Satanists, since those erecting this statue are doing so in the name of free speech, not Satanism.

 

Even if it was discrimination against Satanists, not all discrimination is unfair. In this case I think this would be perfectly fair discrimination since there's a very good social reason to disallow this monument: namely, that except for a tiny minority, this would be paying homage to a figure of evil to everyone else.

[Nerd Rage]

I think the whole argument is one of equality.  If a statue of a married couple (man and woman) was put on the capitol building, I'm sure there would be a group arguing for equal representation for the lgbt community.  The Satanist movement here is merely showing the disservice to the community by only representing a portion of the community with their Christian based statue.  The argument for equal representation is a valid one in my mind.  Statues like the ten commandments, satan, etc (in my opinion) have no place on a government building that is funded by taxpayer dollars.

[Athernar]

Even if it was discrimination against Satanists, not all discrimination is unfair. In this case I think this would be perfectly fair discrimination since there's a very good social reason to disallow this monument: namely, that except for a tiny minority, this would be paying homage to a figure of evil to everyone else.

 

So basically, discrimination is perfectly fine when you're not the target of it? Need I remind you that Christians once were a persecuted minority, being fed to the lions?

 

Maybe we should right the mistakes of our ancestors, and finish the job of exterminating Christians today?

 

Incidentally, you haven't answered the question I posed to you regarding Islam, which views Christian imagery as blasphemous idolatry.

[Andre S. Veteran]

So basically, discrimination is perfectly fine when you're not the target of it? Need I remind you that Christians once were a persecuted minority, being fed to the lions?

 

Maybe we should right the mistakes of our ancestors, and finish the job of exterminating Christians today?

As I said, it's not even discrimination against Satanists in this case. I responded to your point in the hypothetical case that it would. I don't see what this sort of discrimination would have to do with the kind of violent repression of Christians in Antiquity; I already explained why I didn't consider it unfair and you didn't address my point there either.

[Athernar]

As I said, it's not even discrimination against Satanists in this case. I responded to your point in the hypothetical case that it would. I don't see what this sort of discrimination would have to do with the kind of violent repression of Christians in Antiquity; I already explained why I didn't consider it unfair and you didn't address my point there either.

 

It is discrimination, simple as that. You are attempting to deny equal representation to another group, and have attempted to justify such a course of action by:

 

- Invoking the minority status of the other group.

- Invoking your own subjective morality.

- Questioning the "validity" of the other group's claim.

 

None of the above are valid grounds for denying equal representation.

[Andre S. Veteran]

It is discrimination, simple as that. You are attempting to deny equal representation to another group, and have attempted to justify such a course of action by:

 

- Invoking the minority status of the other group.

- Invoking your own subjective morality.

- Questioning the "validity" of the other group's claim.

 

None of the above are valid grounds for denying equal representation.

Exactly to which concept of equal representation are you referring to?

[Athernar]

Exactly to which concept of equal representation are you referring to?

 

I would think given the context of the discussion, the meaning of equal representation should be fairly clear.

 

As a quick aside, are you familiar with Gnosticism? (The religion, not the gnostic/agnostic dichotomy)

[Andre S. Veteran]

I would think given the context of the discussion, the meaning of equal representation should be fairly clear.

 

As a quick aside, are you familiar with Gnosticism? (The religion, not the gnostic/agnostic dichotomy)

I don't see any accepted meaning of the term that would apply. If you're going to argue that I am denying a right, then you should be able to name that right.

 

Yes, I am familiar with gnosticism, why?

[Shadrack]

The whole notion that our country has a separation between church and state is ludicrous.  "IN GOD" is written on our money, for christ's sake (pun intended).  When you testify in court they make you swear on a Bible for christ's sake.

 

I say good for them!  Religious equality for all.  You really cannot come up with a good reason why not to have the statue at a site designated for religious monuments.  If it is fair for Christians then it is fair for all of us.  If not, then can we all stop talking like there is a separation of church and state and start talking about how we can get out of the archaic theocracy that we really are?