Talk:LaVeyan Satanism

message: My friend and I were linked to this article, and we noticed how there are a bunch of errors that don't seem to be in line with Wikipedia's standards.
I've pasted the list of complaints that he wrote down. 
" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laveyan_satanism#The_Eleven_Satanic_Rules_of_the_Earth
section contains unnecessary potholes, people should not need to be linked to the words "opinions" or "advice"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laveyan_satanism#The_Nine_Satanic_Sins
entire section is poorly written. mixes first person and second person, and addresses / commands the viewer directly, therefore lacking significant neutrality
also, the nine satanic sins section contains several contractions, which i'm p sure are informal"
I would rewrite the portions in question, but I don't have enough information on the subject, and I'm terrible myself at staying neutral. 
--Cheeselad102 (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, the purpose of these sections is to state the rules and restrictions of Satanism. The Rules do not use first person anywhere, it is purely third person. They are the equivalent of the Ten Commandments from christianity. The nine satanic sins may appear contradictory, however to someone who is capable of understanding the concept of Satanism, they are not. They are the equivalent of the Seven deadly sins from christianity. These do not need to be rewritten as anything other than what they already are would be an innaccuracy. He's Gone Mental 09:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly written? 

message: The introductory section lists "individualism, self-control and "eye for an eye" morality" as being influenced by Nietzsche but this has nothing to do with Nietzsche's philosiphy and the citation given makes no mention of him. It only mentions Ayn-Rand. Can we remove him?
Lucanio (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nietzsche 

message: This article has had severe quality problems for a long time. Its content seems to be taken directly from the LeVayan marketing materials and other self promotional material. Other parts of it are lifted directly from the LeVayan "Scriptures"
Please do not revert these large changes. They are the beginning of an effort to rewrite the article so that it's actually a Wikipedia article.
Of course, please feel free to add content, as long as it's not in the nature of a PR release, or lifted from the LeVayan Scriptures or website. Thank you   Jjk (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article under re-work Comment 

message: I've been re-editing and re-writing this article in efforts to make its content more comprehensive, thorough and above all, sourced; things this article has never had the dignity of being due to bloated, amateurish, POV writing. I'm working to trim away any and all needlessly overwritten and redundant information and replace it with less lengthy, more direct and poignant information while attempting to maintain an 'encyclopedic tone' to the best of my abilities. At this time, I'm using the Church of Satan's official website as the primary reference source. In due time, I hope to find other non-Church of Satan sources to further reference the information presented here.  --St.HocusPocus (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-editing and re-writing 

message: "When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him."
I'm presuming there's an esoteric meaning here as well, but this isn't clear at all.-MacRùsgail (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "destroy" is used to be rabblerousing, though its meaning is made clear in The Satanic Bible. When pondering this statement, keep "lex talionis" in mind: "the law of retaliation is the principle that a person who has injured another person is penalized to a similar degree". If someone is bothering you in public, return the favor. --St.hocuspocus (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I think I understand it now. Thanks.-MacRùsgail (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this mean?

message: The first part of this article suffers from Wikipedia:Citation overkill. This should be fixed. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true. Equally problematic is that all of the references used in this lede are non-reliable, primary sources, most of them from the writings of Gilmore. I've been focusing my attention on improving the main body of the article using academic sources but I will try to get around to improving the lede and dealing with these problems in the near future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Overkill 

message: Hello there. I've noticed that a few of the citations which have been added to the article don't link to entries in the Referencing, and I've been trying to sort this out, but I'm having difficulty pinning down some of these citations. For instance, there are several references to "Dyrendal, Lewis & Petersen 2010" but a Google search isn't revealing much. Now, there is a 2015 book by these three authors, The Invention of Satanism (which I have yet to read), so it might be that this is an error in the year of the citation, but just thought that I would check. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm just going to go ahead and remove these problematic citations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queries regarding certain citations 

message: The article refer to an https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_de_La_Fontaine and I dont know if this guy is the oldes man on earth. But something is wrong. Does the man exist?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.36.228 (talk • contribs) 
:The link is to the wrong individual.  We do not have an article on the anthropologist Jean La Fontaine, so I have removed the link. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is this Lafontain guy

message: In the book "The Satanic Scriptures", Peter H. Gilmore compiled as list of philosophical assertions that are meant to serve as an encapsulation of an individual's "journey from observing reality to declaring themselves a Satanist". 
* Nature encompasses all the exists. There is nothing supernatural in nature. 
* The spiritual is an illusion. I am utterly carnal. 
* Reason is my tool for cognition making faith anathema. I question all things. I am a skeptic. 
* I do not accept false dichotomies, finding instead the "third side" which brings me closest to understanding the mysteries of existence. 
* The universe is neither benevolent nor malevolent; it is indifferent. 
* There are not Gods. I am an atheist. 
* There is no intrinsic purpose to life beyond biological imperatives. I thus determine my own life's meaning.
* I decide what is of value. I am my own highest value therefore I am my own God. 
* I am an I-theist. 
* Good is that which benefits me and promotes that which I hold in esteem. Evil is that which harms me and hinders that which I cherish. 
* I live to maximize the good the Good for myself and those I value. At all times I remain in control of my pursuit of pleasure. I am an Epicurean. 
* Merit determines my criteria for the judgement of myself and others. I judge and am prepared to be judged. 
* I seek a just outcome in my exchanges with those around me. I thus will do unto others as I would prefer they do unto me. However, if they treat me poorly, I shall return that behavior in like degree. 
* I grasp the human need for symbols as a means for distillation of complex thought structures.
* The symbol that best exemplifies my nature as an aware beast is Satan, the avatar of carnality, justice and self-determination. 
* I see myself reflected in the philosophy created by Anton Szandor LaVey. 
* I am proud to call myself a Satanist. 
I feel like this list contains some pertinent information that would feature well within the "Basic tenets" section of the article, though I cannot find any third party reference to this list. If anyone anybody is aware of one, please share. I'll continue to search for a reference. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satanic Assertions  

message: There are a number of quotations sourced to Nevill Drury.  He wrote the book and the 1985 film version of "The Occult Experience", which I hear went directly to the Temple of Set and interviews only Michael Aquino and his wife for Satanism. I wonder if the lines here about the Church of Satan being sourced to him are really just from Aquino or maybe in directly quote-mined from quoting him, in which case it would be an embarrassingly biased source. Can anybody confirm this?  I'll try to locate the book myself in the meantime. WillieBlues (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drury: Biased Source? Quote-mined? 

message: This article seems out of date, especially missin g or lumping much of the last 20 years into a few sentences. Maybe the history section could be expanded, maybe Origin-72, 72-97, 97-present (post LaVey's death) which would allow room for further discussion about the development since then? Seanbonner (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History needs update 

message: This article refers to Lap, page 99, as saying LaVey was an atheist. However, Lap says on page 100, that "the gods are rejected as an externalization of the human ego, but LaVey states that it is wrong to say that Satanists do not believe in God.  Instead, Satanists believe in God as a dark force ...", Satanic Bible, 1969, pg 40 and 60.  So whoever is quoting Lap in support of LaVey being an atheist, is actually intentionally misquoting Lap and taking what they wrote out of context.Jimhoward72 (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Atheism and Satan?

message: "IT is a popular misconception that the Satanist does not believe in God. The concept of "God", as interpreted by man, has been so varied throughout the ages, that the Satanist simply accepts the definition which suits him best. Man has always created his gods, rather than his gods creating him. God is, to some, benign - to others, terrifying. To the Satanist "God" - by whatever name he is called, or by no name at all - is seen as the balancing factor in nature, and not as being concerned with suffering. This powerful force which permeates and balances the universe is far too impersonal to care about the happiness or misery of flesh-and-blood creatures on this ball of dirt upon which we live."166.164.48.110 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WANTED! - GOD DEAD OR ALIVE doesn't maintain atheism; deism 

message: Anton LaVey claimed that magic is part of natural science, but far undiscovered by scientists.
It is something like the hidden-variable theory.
In methodical natural science we don't focus on weirdness. We step-by-step perform experiments.
He was pushing the limbic system of his cohort to the extreme.
Most of his "magic" was "limbic and temporal artefacts". (from temporal lobe and not time)
::Why is that a controversy? Because strict scientophiles (lovers of great university official science) do find Satanic Atheism useless if they are emotionally balanced and don't like psychological games and figurative concepts.
::: That is some statement. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:FD66:73F2:8691:FB57 (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Satanic_holidays only describes holidays in LaVeyan Satanism, although it alludes to holidays practiced by some other adherants. Conversely, the holidays of The Satanic Temple are listed on their page rather than a subpage. As such, Satanic holidays feels like an unnecessary WP:SPINOUT that should be merged back into this page. Thoughts? BrynnAthena (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal: Satanic Holidays 

message: Every cat owner will notice that these are the rules that their cat lives by. Joking aside, do we have anything to show that LaVey was impressed by or admired the way predators (and big cats in particular) behave and generally conduct themselves? The intellectual genesis of this kind of doctrine can be just as interesting as the final product. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:FD66:73F2:8691:FB57 (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Eleven Satanic Rules - inspired by (feline) predators?