NationStates Jolt Archive

Which one is better?

Mu.

Mu.

Which means...

I always thought satanism is just believing in yourself or something. Anyway, scientology is too wacky for me, so ALL HAIL SATAN!!!

I hate religion though.

Yeah, I think Satanism is far more believable. But, I'm a Hindu, so I'm not one to talk.

Yeah, I think Satanism is far more believable. But, I'm a Hindu, so I'm not one to talk.
A Hindu? Cool.

Please disregard my comment about hating religion. I've got nothing against you.

Satanism; run of the mill Satanism is tame even by conventional religious standards while run of the mill Scientology is just plain dangerous.

Which means...

...that you're asking the wrong question.

A Hindu? Cool.

Please disregard my comment about hating religion. I've got nothing against you.

I don't hate the concept of religion, I just hate how fucked up organized religion has become.

...that you're asking the wrong question.

How so?

I don't hate the concept of religion, I just hate how fucked up organized religion has become.
My sentiments exactly.

That test we did not too long ago reckoned that Satanism is not so much about Satan as it is about the spiritual development of the individual.

So Satanism it is. Because Scientology is just insane.

Depends on which Satanism you are talking about. If you mean the old school killing babies/virgins Satanism, then even Scientology isn't that bad.

But if you mean the Church of Satan, I dare you to find a BETTER religion. (except FSM of course- that beer volcano and hooker factory pwns)

It's pretty much a cult of the individual with cool masks and sex rites, and a certain disdain for the invisible parent culture of Christianity. I think they must be inspired by Heinlien's Job.

That test we did not too long ago reckoned that Satanism is not so much about Satan as it is about the spiritual development of the individual.

So Satanism it is. Because Scientology is just insane.

lol

How so?

You're asking me to compare two completely subjective things from an objective stand point. It would make as much sense to ask whether the Jesus is better than Mohammad, or if Mars is better than Venus. Neither one is better and neither one is worse.

Depends on which Satanism you are talking about. If you mean the old school killing babies/virgins Satanism, then even Scientology isn't that bad.

But if you mean the Church of Satan, I dare you to find a BETTER religion. (except FSM of course- that beer volcano and hooker factory pwns)

It's pretty much a cult of the individual with cool masks and sex rites, and a certain disdain for the invisible parent culture of Christianity. I think they must be inspired by Heinlien's Job.

I'm talking about the Church of Satan

You're asking me to compare two completely subjective things from an objective stand point. It would make as much sense to ask whether the Jesus is better than Mohammad, or if Mars is better than Venus. Neither one is better and neither one is worse.

Okay... let me rephrase that. Which one makes more sense?

Okay... let me rephrase that. Which one makes more sense?

Does Buddha make more sense than Moses?

Does Buddha make more sense than Moses?

Actually, yeah he does.

Actually, yeah he does.

*Sigh*

It would be better to ask this question:

"Would you rather be a member of the Church of Scientology or a member of the Church of Satan?"

It's requesting subjective information about subjective topics, rather than objective information about subjective topics.

Does Buddha make more sense than Moses?

Wow that one's a toss up. I like Budda a hell of a lot better myself, but I find a man that fat teaching people not to self-indulge a bit hypocritical.

Adam Sandler rocks.

Wow that one's a toss up. I like Budda a hell of a lot better myself, but I find a man that fat teaching people not to self-indulge a bit hypocritical.

Adam Sandler rocks.

I award you the Pink Star for Stereotyping above and beyond the call of duty.

if you adhere strictly to Satanism, you improve life for yourself.

if you adhere strictly to Scientology, you improve life for whoever's filling in for Elrond Hoover.

spiritually, neither, they are the same.

however, if you are going with the "in general" thing, then, Satanism hands down is better.

spiritually, neither, they are the same.

however, if you are going with the "in general" thing, then, Satanism hands down is better.
Satanism is actually a very enlightened faith revolving around the individual and worship of the self. The only reason I’m not one, is probably because I lack any spirituality at all and have no need for it.

Scientology on the other hand, well, it just boggles my mind how people can even pretend to believe in it and not die laughing.

That's a tough call. Scientology is the most ridiculously lame religion in existance. Satanism (LaVeyan) has the whole atheist thing going for it, but then there's the uber-capitalism...

Meh.

Which one is better?
Laying aside MU, NOT and NOR for a moment, ...

Satanisim is both "better" and more "legitimate" because:

(A) while it is not a religion per-se, it is the inverse of religion... Catholicisim in particular, therefore its legitimacy arises from legitimacy of Catholicisim (for whatever hat is worth...)

(B) it is not an international criminal organization masquarading as a religion.

I award you the Pink Star for Stereotyping above and beyond the call of duty.

It's a joke. From Anger Management, the movie with Adam Sandler. Thus, the Adam Sandler reference.

Wow that one's a toss up. I like Budda a hell of a lot better myself, but I find a man that fat teaching people not to self-indulge a bit hypocritical.

Adam Sandler rocks.

"Athletic and fit throughout his life, competent in martial arts such as chariot combat, wrestling, and archery, and later easily hiking miles each day and camping in the wilderness. (Images of a fat "Jolly Buddha" or Laughing Buddha are actually depictions of either Maitreya, The future Buddha, or a 10th century Chinese monk, sometimes called Hotei, Hoti, or Milefo.)"

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha) rocks harder.

That's a tough call. Scientology is the most ridiculously lame religion in existance. Satanism (LaVeyan) has the whole atheist thing going for it, but then there's the uber-capitalism...

Meh.

They make great movies though! :p

Satanism is actually a very enlightened faith revolving around the individual and worship of the self. The only reason I’m not one, is probably because I lack any spirituality at all and have no need for it.

Scientology on the other hand, well, it just boggles my mind how people can even pretend to believe in it and not die laughing.
yeah, I used to be a satanist so I know. I figure it does less harm than scientology anyway, which is why I said it's better.

A Hindu? Cool.

Please disregard my comment about hating religion. I've got nothing against you.

Cool, except for the whole caste system. Those sly Aryan dogs.

my extent of knowledge on the subject of satanism is the 'exorcist' and my extent of knowledge on scientology is 'south park' and based on this i say satanism is for people on a shitload of drugs and scientology is for people who need a shitload of drugs

There both extremely stupid, but Scientology is a lot more stupid.

my extent of knowledge on the subject of satanism is the 'exorcist' and my extent of knowledge on scientology is 'south park' and based on this i say satanism is for people on a shitload of drugs and scientology is for people who need a shitload of drugs

You have a shitload of ignorance. Satanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism). Scientology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology).

Satanism. It's got some stupid aspects (some Egocentrism and worship of the self over others), but it's got the right idea (that the Paternal God figure has no right to tell people what to do until he takes away the free will that allows people to do otherwise.)

Scientology is just idiocy.

Wikipedia rocks harder.

As I just said, it was a JOKE. Did the sand fairy visit all you people's vaginas?

I always forget that bringing up anything that happened more than two years ago is pointless with you kids. I never should have thought that anyone would get the Buddha joke from AM. Now if I brought up what color some girls shoes were in a Harry Potter movie, suddenly everyone is on the ball.

And Wiki DOES NOT rock. Although the research is true in this instance, it is not dependable, given Wiki's nature. I'm not getting into this again, because it's not the point, and we've gone over it a hundred times.

Depends on which Satanism you are talking about. If you mean the old school killing babies/virgins Satanism, then even Scientology isn't that bad.
There never was 'old school satanism'. You just have various leftover cults of ba'al from when the romans 'switched' to christianity. In the religions preceding christianity there was quite a bit of child-killing among the richer classes.

You have a shitload of ignorance. Satanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism). Scientology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology).
He's perfectly correct where scientology is concerned. For instance, Tom Cruise would well benefit from some anti-psychotics.

As I just said, it was a JOKE. Did the sand fairy visit all you people's vaginas?

Apparently it visited yours.

Apparently it visited yours.

What did you have for breakfast, Carnation Instant Bitch?

(maybe that joke reference is modern enough for you)

What did you have for breakfast, Carnation Instant Bitch?

(maybe that joke reference is modern enough for you)

Continue your bitching, I don't mind. You'll find that I'm not easily insulted, if that's your objective. ;)

Continue your bitching, I don't mind. You'll find that I'm not easily insulted, if that's your objective. ;)

Yet you take offense (or have to have a sarcastic, elitist, self-righteous comeback) to simple jokes.

edit: the last joke was from That 70's Show, by the way.

Yet you take offense (or have to have a sarcastic, elitist, self-righteous comeback) to simple jokes.

edit: the last joke was from That 70's Show, by the way.

Hey, I'm not taking offense to anything you say. Your description of my 'comeback' is amusing. I'm glad you found it sarcastic, elitist, and entirely self-righteous. I sure do have a way of eliciting a response from people by not meaning anything at all.

Keep 'em coming. I feel your steam running out.

Santanism is just a bunch of people who have issues with society. They need to get jobs.

~snip~
Nah. I'll just put you on the ignore list. Of course, I'm sure you will have an uber-pretentious "oh, I'm so cool, I made him leave" comment- but I won't have to see it.

Nah. I'll just put you on the ignore list. Of course, I'm sure you will have an uber-pretentious "oh, I'm so cool, I made him leave" comment- but I won't have to see it.

Nice.

satanism is cool!

Which one is better?

I'd choose Satanism, as the "satanists" I know view it as something of a joke ala discordianism. Scientologists are serious.

I don't know. Both are bullshit, but Satanism does get a few things somewhat right, I think, if only because LaVey rips off of earlier, and far better, philosophers for material. Given than Satanism is basically Nietzscheanism with magic thrown in, that isn't saying much, though.

...

Unicron

This is utter madness.

Why do people always compare religions. Look, the fact is they are totally different and to try to compare them is stupid.

Let people believe in what they believe in, even if it is stupid.

I'm a Taoist, so I'm taught not to think that one is better then another. I'm happy with my faith, and I don't pick on other's.

One intersting fact I have to admit I stumbled across was the religion wars of Huberd and the author of Stranger in a Strange Land (his name slips my mind at the moment) anyway, those two sci/fi writers had a fight about relgion, and Hubby started scientology, the other one stepped back and saw how stupid it all was.

This is utter madness.

Why do people always compare religions. Look, the fact is they are totally different and to try to compare them is stupid.

Let people believe in what they believe in, even if it is stupid.

I'm a Taoist, so I'm taught not to think that one is better then another. I'm happy with my faith, and I don't pick on other's.

One intersting fact I have to admit I stumbled across was the religion wars of Huberd and the author of Stranger in a Strange Land (his name slips my mind at the moment) anyway, those two sci/fi writers had a fight about relgion, and Hubby started scientology, the other one stepped back and saw how stupid it all was.

Hienlen wrote "Stranger in a Strange Land"

One intersting fact I have to admit I stumbled across was the religion wars of Huberd and the author of Stranger in a Strange Land (his name slips my mind at the moment) anyway, those two sci/fi writers had a fight about relgion, and Hubby started scientology, the other one stepped back and saw how stupid it all was.
http://www.planetkc.com/sloth/sci/religion.money.faq.html

L. Ron Hubbard is widely rumored to have said "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion." There are also variant rumors. For some reason, this is often mentioned on Usenet. The evidence is discussed below, but the short answer is that several reputable people claim to have heard Hubbard say it.

The Church of Scientology has actually taken German publishers to court for printing this story, and the Church won, too. Unfortunately, without details, it's not clear to me what kind of defence the publishers put up, or what German laws and precedents were applicable.

One form of the rumor is that L. Ron Hubbard made a bar bet with Bob Heinlein. This is definitely not true: it's uncharacteristic of Heinlein, and there's no supporting evidence. There is, however, inconclusive evidence that Bob Heinlein suggested some parts of the original "Dianetics".

Another claim is that George Orwell said it first. This is true: in 1938, Orwell wrote "But I have always thought there might be a lot of cash in starting a new religion...". However, he wrote that in a private letter, and I don't know the first publication date. If Hubbard did get the idea from Orwell, that would merely make the "joke" unoriginal.

I found the following in books about Hubbard and Scientology:

"Whenever he was talking about being hard up he often used to say that he thought the easiest way to make money would be to start a religion."

-- reporter Neison Himmel: quoted in "Bare Faced Messiah"** p.117 from 1986 interview. Himmel shared a room with LRH, briefly, Pasadena, fall 1945.

** "Bare-Faced Messiah, The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard", by Russell Miller (N.Y.: Henry Holt & Co., 1987) ISBN 0-8050-0654-0. $19.95 London: Michael Joeseph Penguin Book Ltd, 1987. See the Access FAQ for reviews.

"I always knew he was exceedingly anxious to hit big money - he used to say he thought the best way to do it would be to start a cult."

-- Sam Merwin, then the editor of the "Thrilling" group of magazines: quoted in "Bare Faced Messiah" p.133 from 1986 interview. Winter of 1946/47.

"Around this time he was invited to address a science fiction group in Newark hosted by the writer, Sam Moskowitz. `Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous,' he told the meeting. `If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion.'

-- "Bare Faced Messiah" p.148. Reference given to LA Times, 27 Aug 78. Supposed to have happened in spring 1949.

"Science fiction editor and author Sam Moscowitz tells of the occasion when Hubbard spoke before the Eastern Science Fiction Association in Newark, New Jersey in 1947: `Hubbard spoke ... I don't recall his exact words; but in effect, he told us that writing science fiction for about a penny a word was no way to make a living. If you really want to make a million, he said, the quickest way is to start your own religion.'"

-- "Messiah or Madman"**, p.45. No reference given. Yes, the spelling of Sam's name differs: this book got it wrong, it has a "k". I don't know why the two books disagree by two years.

** "L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?" -- by Bent Corydon and L. Ron Hubbard Jr. a.k.a. Ronald DeWolf.(Secaucus, NJ: Lyle Stuart, 1987) ISBN 0-8184-0444-2 In 1992, from Barricade Books, dist. by Publishers Group West, $12.95 See the Access FAQ for reviews.

The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction lists Sam Moskowitz as the first good historian of science fiction [among other things].

Now, there is a problem with the Moskowitz reports. Specifically, a scientologist (Brian Wenger, wengerb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu) has sent me copies of 1993 affadavits by David A. Kyle and Jay Kay Klein. Both names are well-known in science fiction, and both say that they went to a talk by Hubbard, in Newark, on 7 November 1948. Both say that Hubbard made no such statement at that meeting. Hmm. At a guess, I would say that the LA Times and Mr. Corydon both got a confused story, but since Moskowitz is now dead, the point isn't easily resolved. One possibility is that Moskowitz himself got it wrong: his written works were notable for their mistaken dates, confusion of fact and opinion, and the like. He is remembered as a fine man, but a poor researcher.

On 9apr94, jittlov@gumby.cs.caltech.edu (Mike Jittlov) posted: (about a conversation with Theodore Sturgeon)

}Back in the 1940's, L. Ron Hubbard was a member of the Los Angeles
}Science Fantasy Society (when its old clubhouse was just north of
}Wilshire Blvd). Ted vividly recalled being a few yards from Hubbard,
}when he became testy with someone there and retorted, "Y'know, we're
}all wasting our time writing this hack science fiction! You wanta
}make _real_ money, you gotta start a _religion_!
}
}Though I didn't ask, I think Ted would've mentioned it if the second
}person was Heinlein or another author of note. He had an extremely
}accurate memory, and I'd trust Sturgeon over anyone else's account.

Theodore Sturgeon was one of the truly great science fiction writers, and someone whose word and memories were trusted. (John W. Campbell commented that Sturgeon should have written the definitive history of SF fandom.) Mike Jittlov is a respected Hollywood filmmaker and stopmotion actor, and can be found on the net at alt.fan.mike-jittlov.

Lloyd Arthur Eshbach was a science fiction writer and publisher between 1929 and 1957. His autobiography, "Over My Shoulder: Reflections on a Science Fiction Era" ( Oswald Train: Publisher, Phila. 1983, limited edition) says on pages 125 and 126 (about the events of 1948 and 1949):

I think of the time while in New York I took John W. Campbell Marty Greenberg, and L. Ron Hubbard to lunch. Someone suggested a Swedish smorgasbord, and I had my first--and last--taste of kidney. Yuck! Afterward we wound up in my hotel room for related conversation.

The incident is stamped indelibly in my mind because of one statement that Ron Hubbard made. What led him to say what he did I can't recall--but in so many words Hubbard said:

"I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is!"

Eshbach based his autobiography on detailed records and dated diary entries, and is therefore likely to be quite accurate on this point.

To summarize: one the one hand, the Church has won lawsuits about this, details unknown. On the other hand, we have five witnesses: Neison Himmel, Sam Merwin, Sam Moskowitz, Theodore Sturgeon, and Lloyd Arthur Eshbach. There is some confusion and doubt about one of the five (Sam Moskowitz): two others are reported via Russel Miller: one is reported via Mike Jittlov: one reported in his own book. All five witnesses seem to be reporting about different instances.

Conclusion: I really don't see how they could all be wrong.

Ctrl + C ftw.

You know, rumors have to start out somewhere, plus, that'd be the best start to a religion ever.

Two drunk guys betting to see who can get more followers.

Santanism is just a bunch of people who have issues with society. They need to get jobs.

We have jobs. Other than that, you are correct.

We have jobs. Other than that, you are correct.

Oh come off it, everyone has issues with society.

I mean look at me, I hate the schooling system my society has set up because the students are numbers instead of people.

I'm a Taoist, so I'm taught not to think that one is better then another.

Religious/spiritual/philosophical beliefs should fall in line with yours, not tell you what to believe. Think for yourself, don't let others tell you what to think.

Even for "satanism" as in worshipping Satan I prefer Satanism over Scientology.

After all, Satan's like an angrier version of Prometheus. Sorta. Ain't no harm in that.

Oh come off it, everyone has issues with society.

I mean look at me, I hate the schooling system my society has set up because the students are numbers instead of people.

And you expect this to change when you grow up, right?

Religious/spiritual/philosophical beliefs should fall in line with yours, not tell you what to believe. Think for yourself, don't let others tell you what to think.

Something got lost in translation, why did you bold "taught not to think" and then say others should fall in line with me.

...damnit, I'm missing something. This is frustrating.

Look, I was never taught not the think, you're taking either out of context or just trying to prove a point about religions. Hell, my parents told me to think for my self a long time ago. My mom was raised a christian, she didn't force it on me, I've been studying religion for most of my teen years, it's enjoyable once you get past the "I'm right about everything."

Religion has a good message, sometimes, it's just been lost over the ages.

Big Jim P, I don't expect anything to change. Change is random and it's too hard to see into the future. I don't want to get into that kettle of fish.

You have a shitload of ignorance. Satanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism). Scientology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology).

Hey, cut the ad hominem insults. He admitted the fact he didn't know anything about it other than South Park and The Excorsist.


Other than that, I'll admit that my knowledge of both are even more limited. However, I must say that from what I know about them, I dislike them both equally as much, and that they'll both burn in hell.

I am a Calvinist, after all. :)

I'm not too clear on what these are. Could someone enlighten me as to what exactly what these religions are, and where their similarities and differences lie?

Satanists don't believe in satan or god or anything. They also don't sue everyone who disagrees with them.

So I'll go with Satanism being better.

Something got lost in translation, why did you bold "taught not to think" and then say others should fall in line with me.

...damnit, I'm missing something. This is frustrating.

Look, I was never taught not the think, you're taking either out of context or just trying to prove a point about religions. Hell, my parents told me to think for my self a long time ago. My mom was raised a christian, she didn't force it on me, I've been studying religion for most of my teen years, it's enjoyable once you get past the "I'm right about everything."

Religion has a good message, sometimes, it's just been lost over the ages.

Big Jim P, I don't expect anything to change. Change is random and it's too hard to see into the future. I don't want to get into that kettle of fish.

"Religious/spiritual/philosophical beliefs should fall in line with yours" meaning that the religious set of beliefs should match up with your own personal beliefs, you shouldn't conform and adopt theirs while abandoning your own. Clear?

I'm not too clear on what these are. Could someone enlighten me as to what exactly what these religions are, and where their similarities and differences lie?
Scientologists believe that there was a war between two alien groups, one alien group blew up the other one near earth and the spirits of the dead aliens attached themselves to our ancestors and these dead alien spirits are what makes us unhappy. They then charge their adherents huge sums of money to get hooked up to these e-metres which test the level of their infection with these aliens and actively discourage people who have real mental illnesses to seek real help and take real medications. They also have a team of lawyers that go after anyone who says anything against the church.

Satanists believe that there isn't a god or a devil. They'll be nice to you if you're nice to them, but if you're not then they won't be. They kinda reverse a lot of what christians consider virtuous. Instead of loving your neighbour, they believe in loving your neighbour if he's deserving of such love.

Savvy.

Though, regious deviance is looked down upon, it's how many of the other religions got started. The joys of looking at all of this stuff for so long.

Satanism, atleast that's a real religion, not some pathetic personality cult of a dead, and bad sci-fi writer.

Which one is better?
While Satanism makes more sense than Scientology (which I don't even consider a religion) they both suck balls.

While Satanism makes more sense than Scientology (which I don't even consider a religion) they both suck balls.

Why don't you see it as a religion though?

Communism!

Satanism, atleast that's a real religion, not some pathetic personality cult of a dead, and bad sci-fi writer.
I wouldn't really consider satanism much of a real religion either. It's basically atheism with a consistent philosophy and a name to piss off christians.

Anything which claims to be a religion and isn't 2000 years old is a cult. :D

I think you have to have a certain amount of followers and or fill out some other criterias for it to be a called a religion, not sure tough...

And I HATE when people think that Devil-worshiping is the same as Satanism...

But Scientology = So very fucked up, and if you count out the magic Satanism is the best ideology I've ever come across.

As much as I hate to say it Satanism... Both involve Brainwashing but *shakes head* Scientology is just a looser escape to a fantasy world. It would be better to believe in nothing than in that.

Satanism is a logical ideology.

Scientology is some crap some dude pulled out of his ass to make money.

This question makes no sense. It would be the same to ask: What would you rather eat, broken glass or razor blades?

Scientology is a ridiculous cult, see www.xenu.com

Satanism is a part of Christianity, due to the fact their beliefs are born from going against Jesus Christ. :confused: Its Totally ridiculous.

Religion is just the crutch of the weak and feeble man.

Original Satanism (religious) < Scientology < Current Satanism (philosophy or Church of Satan)

I don't hold with either, however. Except for the "current Satanism" part, it sorta actively involves harming other people. "Current Satanism" I can accept as other people's beliefs that they can hold if they wish, I just won't believe in it, because it's what they believe but they don't actively harm people in the process. That's pretty much my criterion for whether or not I accept it as an okay religion for someone. To be an okay religion for myself, it not only has to hold to that, but I have to believe in it too! ;)

Well, The Church of Satanism has yet to kill anybody, so I'm going for that.

Scientoligy makes you rich, Satanism is horifficly depressing. I would pick Scientoligy

You're asking me to compare two completely subjective things from an objective stand point. It would make as much sense to ask whether the Jesus is better than Mohammad, or if Mars is better than Venus. Neither one is better and neither one is worse.
Wrong. Satan could kick the shit out of L. Ron Hubbard.

Satanism (like actual Anton LaVey Satanism) is actually a pretty interesting religion.

From my buddy, an avowed Satanist, comes an interesting point. Satan means only one that challenges/fights the accepted. Since Lucifer did this, he deserves Satan, but so does Galileo, Socrates, Mohandas Ghandi, America's Founding Fathers, Poland's Solidarity Movement during Communism, and the French resistance of WWII. For this alone, Satanism kicks Ass and takes names. My friend, however, is avowedly against raping virgins, kiling children, engaging in human sacrifice, and all the rest of the whole worshipping the Dark Lord.

Inter Hastas Et Hastes

I'll choose the lesser of two evils: Satanism.

Neither:sniper:

Neither:sniper:

A first post gun smilie! I called it, I got your soul.

Another to add to my collection...