Happy Atheist Forum

First, I define Satanism as the philosophy codified by Anton Szandor LaVey* in The Satanic Bible** and institutionalized by him in the Church of Satan***.
 
* LaVey: http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/LaVeyBiography.html

** The Satanic Bible: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0380015390/churchofsatan

*** Church of Satan: http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html


Secondly, I don't in any sense, direct or indirect, real or implied, officially represent Satanism, Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible, or the Church of Satan.  I am merely somewhat knowledgeable with respect to all four, having applied time and energy to the study thereof.

I noticed a thread from earlier this year, in which a modicum of curiosity with respect to the topic of Satanism was expressed by a few people.  Since the topic is entirely relevant to atheism, and since I know something about it, I offer this thread, in case a modicum of curiosity still lingers.

Satanism is an atheistic religion of common sense.

Yes, just as non-religious theism exists, as demonstrated by New Agers and Deists, so too does atheistic religion exist, as demonstrated by Satanists.  In fact, I debated whether to place this thread in the Religion forum, but opted ultimately for the Philosophy forum, because I think most people will have better comprehension of my points if they start from a premise of philosophy rather than religion.  Nevertheless, Satanists describe what they do as a religion.
 
An axiom of Satanism is, "Satan demands study, not worship."  That alone was sufficient impetus for me to place this thread here in the Philosophy section.  Most people would view a system of thought and behavior that demanded study, not worship, as philosophy rather than religion.

Satan is strictly a symbol.  It represents a variety of things, but what it doesn't, absolutely doesn't, represent, is any sort of sapient entity.  What it also doesn't, absolutely doesn't, represent, is what the Christian means by the name, Satan.  I'll get to what the symbol represents at the end of my post, but first, I'll offer nine statements about common sense.  These nine statements are paraphrases of nine other statements authored by Anton Szandor LaVey.  I will end this post with the original nine statements from LaVey.  But to establish the right mindset, I will begin with my paraphrases.

I define common sense as, "animal wisdom, empirical and logical, never contrary to your survival, never contrary to your competitive advantage, and never contrary to your happiness."

I think common sense is a good anchor and compass.  Perhaps you agree.  

Consider, then, these nine paraphrases:


1. Common sense suggests there is no reason to abstain from enjoyments that are neither dangerous to oneself or others nor counter-productive to one's goals.

2. Common sense suggests earthly success and happiness are likeliest if earthly success and happiness are made the center of our attention.

3. Common sense suggests filling our heads with false or unfalsifiable propositions will sabotage common sense.

4. Common sense suggests there is no reason to help those who refuse to reciprocate when an opportunity presents itself.

5. Common sense suggests retribution as the response to deliberate injury, with self-preservation and competitive advantage the only counter-arguments.

6. Common sense suggests there is no reason to help those who refuse to help themselves.

7. Common sense suggests we are animals and all of our motives animalistic, better acknowledged than denied.

8. Common sense suggests ignoring the moral pronouncements of those who lack or ignore common sense.

9. Common sense suggests hell is a marketing gimmick, nothing more, designed to make heavy with donations the collection plate on Sunday.


What's your response to the above?  I wouldn't be surprised if you found yourself nodding your head nine times.  A great deal of the Satanist's mindset is expressed in the above.  What remains, if the above is sifted out, is a certain aesthetic, plus usually a sense of the dramatic, plus often a disdain for those who lack common sense.  You'll get a sense of all of that when you read the original Nine Statements that I was paraphrasing above.  The aesthetic, the sense of the dramatic, and the disdain, are all integral to why a person would go beyond mere head-nodding, choosing to invest time, energy, and relatively small amounts of money into further study, and, possibly, engagement with the institution and/or its members.

Incidentally, some Satanists peform rituals, though many don't.  Of those who do, some think their rituals impact the material world, though many don't.  Those who don't think that, see ritual as a vehicle for self-expression, fun, and catharsis.  Here again, the aesthetic, the sense of the dramatic, and the disdain, all come into play.  Those who think their rituals impact the material world, usually interpret this in terms of quantum mechanics and the inexplicable impact consciousness seems able to have on material phenomena.

Furthermore, most Satanists are students of human psychology, and employ their knowledge thereof to further their goals.  They see human motivation as a field of opportunity and they take whatever opportunities present themselves, albeit they stop short of breaking the law, and most stop short of causing injury.

Satanism forcefully denounces breaking the law.  It also forcefully denounces harming animals for fun or profit, and forcefully denounces harming children for any reason.

I conclude this post, then, with The Nine Satanic Statements, authored by Anton Szandor LaVey, and appearing on page 25 of my copy of The Satanic Bible, the very first page following the Table of Contents, Introduction, Preface, and Prologue:

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!

2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!

3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!

4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!

5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!

6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!

7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!

8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!

9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!

Satan also represents just another weird and unnecessary belief system.

I do find Satansim to be better than Christianity in most regards, however.

I don't really have much more against satanists than I do against the motorcycle gangs. Poker nights and strip shows are cool. Animal sacrifices and mutilated graveyards - not so much. (Not that that second part can be attributed to most LaVeyan Satanists, but there it is still. Group stereotyping is wonderful, yes?   )

Basically, as long as they behave, I'm cool with whatever they do.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"Satan also represents just another weird and unnecessary belief system.

Indeed.  It's only a reaction to the Bible religions from which it derives.  IMHO a damn silly one at that.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"Satan also represents just another weird and unnecessary belief system.

It may be weird or unnecessary to a given person but Satanism isn't a belief system, just as atheism isn't a belief system.

Quote from: "OldGit"Indeed.  It's only a reaction to the Bible religions from which it derives.  IMHO a damn silly one at that.

It is to some extent a reaction to the absurdity of the bible religions, just as atheism is to some extent a reaction to precisely the same thing, but Satanism doesn't derive from the bible religions, just as atheism doesn't.

I'll also note that one man's silliness is another man's fun.  But of course the reverse is equally true.

If it is not a reaction to the Bible then I would assume to find the word Satan had origins in religions which predate the bible...couldn't find any indication of that searching google (other than it being implied on satanist sites).

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"Satan also represents just another weird and unnecessary belief system.

It may be weird or unnecessary to a given person but Satanism isn't a belief system, just as atheism isn't a belief system.

How so? Atheism is simply lack of belief in God. LaVey wrote nine "tenets", if you will.

Quote from: "Whitney"If it is not a reaction to the Bible then I would assume to find the word Satan had origins in religions which predate the bible...couldn't find any indication of that searching google (other than it being implied on satanist sites).

Satanism is to some extent a reaction to the bible, as I had noted.  But it doesn't derive from the bible.  I'm distinguishing between reacting to X and deriving from X.  For example, the Constitution of the United States is to some extent a reaction to the excesses of monarchy, but it doesn't derive from monarchy.  The Framers despised monarchy's excesses, so they devised a democratic republic.  Anton Szandor LaVey despised biblical absurdities, so he devised an Epicurean and materialistic outlook, an atheistic religion of common sense.

Quote from: "Sophus"How so? Atheism is simply lack of belief in God. LaVey wrote nine "tenets", if you will.

Those tenets aren't beliefs.  They're decisions.  Satan is a symbol redefined by LaVey to mean what he said it meant, because he said so.  He made nine decisions, wrote them down, and distributed them in a book.  Readers of the book decide, first, to read the thing, then decide, second, whether they agree with its outlook, and then decide, third, whether they will take on the book's outlook as their own.  Deciding yes all three times, the Satanist has decided that, for the Satanist, the symbol of Satan means what LaVey said it meant, not only because LaVey said so, but because, now, the Satanist says so too.

I'll take this a step further.  But what I describe in this paragraph will be my own reaction to Satanism.  In this paragraph I'm not describing what Satanism is.  I'm describing my own reaction to it.  My nine paraphrases in the OP represent, for me, the logical conclusions to be drawn, given the premise of the non-existence or at least the irrelevance of God and God's will.  Left to my own devices, unrestrained by any fear of God, I would logically conclude a variety of things about how to live, nine of which are described in my OP.  To me it seems self-evident that the non-existence or at least the irrelevance of God and God's will has ramifications easily extrapolated by the thinking person.  Why wouldn't I enjoy myself, absent harm or counter-productiveness?  Why wouldn't I center my attention on earthly success and happiness?  Why wouldn't I empty my head of false or unfalsifiable propositions?  Why wouldn't I refuse to help people who refuse to reciprocate when an opportunity presents itself?  You get my drift.  Satanism is a body of common sense conclusions about how to live, easily extrapolated from the premise that God and God's will either don't exist or don't matter.

Incidentally, I got amusement from the fact that my OP was, for me, post number 366, as close as I could come to the Number of the Beast.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Why wouldn't I enjoy myself, absent harm or counter-productiveness?  Why wouldn't I center my attention on earthly success and happiness?  Why wouldn't I empty my head of false or unfalsifiable propositions?  Why wouldn't I refuse to help people who refuse to reciprocate when an opportunity presents itself?  You get my drift.  Satanism is a body of common sense conclusions about how to live, easily extrapolated from the premise that God and God's will either don't exist or don't matter.

Sure, but not everybody agrees with "common sense", as silly as it sounds. If Satanism is a collection of conclusions then I don't see how it's not a set of beliefs, common or not.

Quote from: "Sophus"Sure, but not everybody agrees with "common sense", as silly as it sounds. If Satanism is a collection of conclusions then I don't see how it's not a set of beliefs, common or not.

OK.  If you would say you believe touching a hot stove hurts, or that you believe it makes sense to keep your hand off a hot stove, then I guess you would consider Satanism a set of beliefs.

Since a few people have been at least interested enough to challenge my assertions, I guess I'll take this thread one step further.

I'll repeat my caveat from the OP: I don't in any sense, direct or indirect, real or implied, officially represent Satanism, Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible, or the Church of Satan. I am merely somewhat knowledgeable with respect to all four, having applied time and energy to the study thereof.

I'll define folly as, "self-inflicted earthly harm or risk insufficiently balanced by earthly benefit actual or potential."

An atheistic religion of common sense would disapprove of folly and the sources of folly.  The latter are what I would consider practical vices, the sorts of behavior patterns an atheistic religion of common sense would call out as its sins.  That last word probably sounds bombastic or grandiose, but as I had noted in my OP, in Satanism there is a certain aesthetic, and a sense of the dramatic, and disdain for lack of common sense, which, all three taken together, sometimes play out as bombastic or grandiose language, a source of entertainment and honest self-expression for adherents.

Satanism specifically calls out nine sources of folly.  As in my OP, I am here offering first my own paraphrases, to be followed at the end of this post with the original language authored by Anton Szandor LaVey.  The nine sources of folly, then:

1. Other people's folly accidentally absorbed due to a failure of the mental immune system.

2. Buying into your own false advertising.

3. Basing your strategies and tactics on the assumption that other people will react as you would.
 
4. Short-circuiting your own mental immune system out of fear or desire.

5. Knowing something is folly but doing it any way because otherwise people will disapprove.

6. Failure to look at the big picture.

7. Ignorance of the past, where knowledge of it would have illuminated the best course.

8. Unwillingness to lose face, when what you'll lose instead is much more substantial.

9. Being blind and deaf to beauty and ugliness, putting you at a competitive disadvantage, since beauty and ugliness drive much about human behavior.


The Satanist is encouraged to avoid the above, so as to survive, and win, and be happy, the three generalized common sense goals.

What follows is the original language authored by LaVey.  You'll notice immediately the particular aesthetic, the sense of the dramatic, and the disdain for lack of common sense.  When you see the phrase Lesser Magic, what's denoted is the use of psychological tactics to get from people what you want, without breaking the law and without, necessarily, hurting anyone.

The Nine Satanic Sins

1. Stupidityâ€"The top of the list for Satanic Sins. The Cardinal Sin of Satanism. It’s too bad that stupidity isn’t painful. Ignorance is one thing, but our society thrives increasingly on stupidity. It depends on people going along with whatever they are told. The media promotes a cultivated stupidity as a posture that is not only acceptable but laudable. Satanists must learn to see through the tricks and cannot afford to be stupid.

2. Pretentiousnessâ€"Empty posturing can be most irritating and isn’t applying the cardinal rules of Lesser Magic. On equal footing with stupidity for what keeps the money in circulation these days. Everyone’s made to feel like a big shot, whether they can come up with the goods or not.

3. Solipsismâ€"Can be very dangerous for Satanists. Projecting your reactions, responses and sensibilities onto someone who is probably far less attuned than you are. It is the mistake of expecting people to give you the same consideration, courtesy and respect that you naturally give them. They won’t. Instead, Satanists must strive to apply the dictum of “Do unto others as they do unto you.” It’s work for most of us and requires constant vigilance lest you slip into a comfortable illusion of everyone being like you. As has been said, certain utopias would be ideal in a nation of philosophers, but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, from a Machiavellian standpoint) we are far from that point.

4. Self-deceitâ€"It’s in the “Nine Satanic Statements” but deserves to be repeated here. Another cardinal sin. We must not pay homage to any of the sacred cows presented to us, including the roles we are expected to play ourselves. The only time self-deceit should be entered into is when it’s fun, and with awareness. But then, it’s not self-deceit!

5. Herd Conformityâ€"That’s obvious from a Satanic stance. It’s all right to conform to a person’s wishes, if it ultimately benefits you. But only fools follow along with the herd, letting an impersonal entity dictate to you. The key is to choose a master wisely instead of being enslaved by the whims of the many.

6. Lack of Perspectiveâ€"Again, this one can lead to a lot of pain for a Satanist. You must never lose sight of who and what you are, and what a threat you can be, by your very existence. We are making history right now, every day. Always keep the wider historical and social picture in mind. That is an important key to both Lesser and Greater Magic. See the patterns and fit things together as you want the pieces to fall into place. Do not be swayed by herd constraintsâ€"know that you are working on another level entirely from the rest of the world.

7. Forgetfulness of Past Orthodoxiesâ€"Be aware that this is one of the keys to brainwashing people into accepting something new and different, when in reality it’s something that was once widely accepted but is now presented in a new package. We are expected to rave about the genius of the creator and forget the original. This makes for a disposable society.

8. Counterproductive Prideâ€"That first word is important. Pride is great up to the point you begin to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The rule of Satanism is: if it works for you, great. When it stops working for you, when you’ve painted yourself into a corner and the only way out is to say, I’m sorry, I made a mistake, I wish we could compromise somehow, then do it.

9. Lack of Aestheticsâ€"This is the physical application of the Balance Factor. Aesthetics is important in Lesser Magic and should be cultivated. It is obvious that no one can collect any money off classical standards of beauty and form most of the time so they are discouraged in a consumer society, but an eye for beauty, for balance, is an essential Satanic tool and must be applied for greatest magical effectiveness. It’s not what’s supposed to be pleasingâ€"it’s what is. Aesthetics is a personal thing, reflective of one’s own nature, but there are universally pleasing and harmonious configurations that should not be denied.

You know, Inevitable Droid, the world would probably be a better place if more people kept all those things in mind.  They would seem to be common sense - unfortunately, common sense isn't so common and many of those items would require a knowledge of self, human behavior in general, the past, and the present that too few people are willing to take the time to learn.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Sophus"Sure, but not everybody agrees with "common sense", as silly as it sounds. If Satanism is a collection of conclusions then I don't see how it's not a set of beliefs, common or not.

OK.  If you would say you believe touching a hot stove hurts, or that you believe it makes sense to keep your hand off a hot stove, then I guess you would consider Satanism a set of beliefs.

but by this you are implying that all beliefs in satanism are clearly true...it's an ethical egoist religion/philosophy and not everyone agrees with ethical egoism; so you really can't call it a set of obvious facts.

Frankly, if I did subscribe to ethical egoism I'd just do so and not bother with the satanic symbolism because I think it's kinda pointless.

Satanism is not atheism.   Satanism is a theism, a belief in a higher power, a supreme being.  Atheism is the lack of belief in a supreme being.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote from: "Lythande"Satanism is not atheism.   Satanism is a theism, a belief in a higher power, a supreme being.  Atheism is the lack of belief in a supreme being.  Nothing more, nothing less.

The OP is about LaVey satanism, not devil worship.  There is a form of satanism that actually does worship and believe in a real satan but that's not what is being discussed.

Quote from: "Whitney"The OP is about LaVey satanism, not devil worship.  There is a form of satanism that actually does worship and believe in a real satan but that's not what is being discussed.

... I get it.  The stated definition sounds like a good set of precepts.

But, seriously - Satanism?

"Hey everyone, I've got a wonderful set of rules to make the world a better place... I call it Hitlerism!"

Why, why, why would you associate yourself with a prominent evil figure?

(also agree that a set of precepts by which you live your life is not equal to a religion).

ism ism ism

The problem with Satanism is the name.  By and large, people aren't going to be smart enough to see the difference between this concept of Satan and the biblical Satan.  By creating a non-theistic religion named after the big bad guy in Christianity it helps spread the idea that all atheists worship Satan and are evil.

Isn't one of the stated goals of Satanism to create robot slaves to serve humanity? I remember reading that on the official Satanist Church website years ago.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"The problem with Satanism is the name.

Ye but I bet it got old LaVey a lot of weird sex he wouldn't have got otherwise.

Quote from: "Whitney"but by this you are implying that all beliefs in satanism are clearly true...it's an ethical egoist religion/philosophy and not everyone agrees with ethical egoism; so you really can't call it a set of obvious facts.

I'll split a hair, because I think it's an important one.  Satanism is rational egoism*, which differs somewhat from ethical egoism.  Rational egoism is the claim that doing what's in your best interest is rational; I.e., it makes sense.  Ethical egoism is the claim that doing what's in your best interest is obligatory - that failure to do so is moral failure.  Ayn Rand was an ethical egoist.  Objectivism and Satanism differ on a number of points, including whether egoism is obligatory.  

Rational egoism can be soft or hard.  The soft variety claims doing what's in your best interest is sufficient but not necessary in order to be rational; I.e., choosing someone else's best interest above your own can be rational, if such action fulfills your genuine, honest priorities.  The hard variety claims doing what's in your best interest is not only sufficient but also necessary in order to be rational; I.e., it would always be irrational to choose someone else's best interest above your own.  Satanism is soft rational egoism.  No Satanist will call you irrational for sacrificing on behalf of your son or daughter, for example, or even your pet.

I can easily imagine atheists rejecting ethical egoism.  I myself reject it, just as I reject all morality.  I can also imagine atheists rejecting hard rational egoism.  I myself reject it.  But I doubt there are atheists who reject soft rational egoism.  Is my doubt misplaced?

* I know LaVey's talk of sins can make it seem like ethical egoism is being promoted, but such isn't the case.  Sometimes Satanism will opt for drama over philsophical rigor.  It's more dramatic to talk of sins.  But no moral obligation is implied.

QuoteFrankly, if I did subscribe to ethical egoism I'd just do so and not bother with the satanic symbolism because I think it's kinda pointless.

Fair enough.  If taking on the guise of society's bogey man doesn't amuse or gratify you, then Satanism would hold no appeal.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"The problem with Satanism is the name.  By and large, people aren't going to be smart enough to see the difference between this concept of Satan and the biblical Satan.  By creating a non-theistic religion named after the big bad guy in Christianity it helps spread the idea that all atheists worship Satan and are evil.

Two responses to this.  First, yes, a consequence is that Satanists have from time to time been the targets of angry or frightened Christians.  One avoids this by declining to publicise one's involvement.  But of course, being a public atheist can draw some of the same anger or fear from Christians, as can being a public Wiccan.  Why be a Satanist at all?  Why not simply be an atheist and a soft rational egoist?  Because taking on the guise of society's bogey man can be fun, and being in the company of others who think so too, can likewise be fun.  I can't emphasize enough that Satanism is something you do because you enjoy it.  Among Satanists, it often can seem like it's Halloween all year long, and if you happen to be a fan of Halloween, you'll delight in being among Satanists, and being one yourself.  When you were a kid, did you and your friends ever play imaginary games where you took on the roles of monsters?  When you got older, did you ever play role playing games like Vampire: The Masquerade?  This is generally the underlying impetus for someone to engage fully with Satanism.  But since atheism and soft rational egoism* are also part of the package, if you don't embrace those concepts as well, the whole thing won't work for you as a long-term lifestyle.

Secondly, yes, a consequence is that Satanism doesn't have a magnetic attraction for most people.  This is viewed as a plus rather than a minus.  That old slogan of the United States Marines works beautifully here.  "The few.  The proud.  The Satanists."  Whereas Christianity wants as many devotees as it can get, Satanism aims at quality instead, and in fact would be suspicious of too much quantity.  It is taken as axiomatic that Satanism isn't for everybody, by design.  This harkens back to the disdain for lack of common sense.  Satanists tend to view the general population, taken collectively, as mostly lacking in common sense.  This perception results in misanthropy to a greater or lesser degree, depending on how passionate the disdain is.  Misanthropes don't proselytise.  In fact, they tend to do the very opposite.  They would rather scare you away.  Unless you're really one of them, of course, in which case you're invited right in, with a knowing smile and a twinkling eye.  
 
* I should note that in Satanism, soft rational egoism is absolute; I.e., anything, absolutely anything, that satisfies, and is neither harmful to you or others nor counter-productive to goals that matter more to you, and is legal, is rational, and by definition, then, makes sense to pursue - and your fellow Satanists will be supportive, and will laud your accomplishments, regardless whether they share your inclinations or not.

Quote from: "Babylon Fell"Isn't one of the stated goals of Satanism to create robot slaves to serve humanity? I remember reading that on the official Satanist Church website years ago.

Robots slaves, or, Artificial Human Companions, are indeed part of a Five-Point Program that Anton Szandor LaVey put forth for the membership of the Church of Satan.  I quote all five points at the bottom of this post.

Robot slaves and human ones would differ in (at least) one crucial regard.  Most humans aren't programmed by chemistry to want to serve a master.  I'll note in passing that in the BDSM community, where master and slave are known as top and bottom, the bottoms may in fact be genetically predisposed to the lifestyle they pursue with passion and delight, albeit we must remember that for them, slavery is voluntary and can be terminated by them at any time.  Robot slaves will all be programmed by sapient hands to want to serve a master - assuming it makes sense to say they want, which would really be the case only if they have awakened to experience.  In any case, if slavery is built into their very natures, then, for these robots, slavery will be self-actualization.

The appeal of robot slaves is partly the fact that they could perform tasks their masters would rather not, but mostly the fact that, if capable of conversation and other intimacies, they could be programmed to fit the precise predilections of the master, would never behave irrationally, and could be turned off and stored in a closet whenever the master wanted to be alone.  Cake both had and eaten, for the lonely misanthrope, who disdains most of humanity for its lack of common sense.  Consider that talking to a sapient robot would be literally like talking to the entire internet, since of course the robot would have internet access and the ability to perform searches and analyze results at nanosecond speed, and you may not even need to be a misanthrope to grasp the appeal.

With regard to the Five-Point Program, I'll clarify that the Church of Satan doesn't function as any kind of legion.  It is the farthest thing from a corpus diabolicus.  Each Satanist is doing his or her own thing.  It's unusual for even two Satanists to band together, let alone three, or thirty.  The Five-Point Program, then, serves purely as a set of suggestions the Satanist might take into account when and if the Satanist decides to venture into the world with intent to leave a mark.  The first suggestion would make the world more top performer-friendly and less slacker-friendly; the second would make it less Christian-friendly and less Muslim-friendly, hence more atheist-friendly; the third would make it less criminal-friendly and more law abiding citizen-friendly; the fourth would make it more misanthrope-friendly; and the fifth would make it more anachronist-friendly, more futurist-friendly, and more fantasist-friendly.  This all makes sense because Satanists tend to be top performers, atheists, law-abiding citizens, misanthropes, and either anachronists, futurists, or fantasists - or all three, or two of the three.  Rational egoism is the impetus.      

What follows was authored by Anton Szandor LaVey:

The following Five-Point Program reflects attitudes which allow others to decide whether they wish to align themselves with Satanism or not. Each is necessary for Satanic change to take place. When asked what we’re “doing,” here’s the answer:

1. Stratificationâ€"The point on which all the others ultimately rest. There can be no more myth of “equality” for allâ€"it only translates to “mediocrity” and supports the weak at the expense of the strong. Water must be allowed to seek its own level without interference from apologists for incompetence. No one should be protected from the effects of his own stupidity.

2. Strict taxation of all churchesâ€"If churches were taxed for all their income and property, they’d crumble overnight of their own obsolescence, and the National Debt would be wiped out as quickly. The productive, the creative, the resourceful should be subsidized. So long as the useless and incompetent are getting paid, they should be heavily taxed.

3. No tolerance for religious beliefs secularized and incorporated into law and order issuesâ€"to re-establish “Lex Talionis” would require a complete overturning of the present in-justice system based on Judeo-Christian ideals, where the victim/defender has been made the criminal. Amnesty should be considered for anyone in prison because of his alleged “influence” upon the actual perpetrator of the crime. Everyone is influenced in what he or she does. Scapegoating has become a way of life, a means of survival for the unfit. As an extension of the Judeo-Christian cop-out of blaming the Devil for everything, criminals can gain leniency, even praise, by placing the blame on a convenient villain. Following the Satanic creed of “Responsibility to the responsible,” in a Satanic society, everyone must experience the consequences of his own actionsâ€"for good or ill.

4. Development and production of artificial human companionsâ€"The forbidden industry. An economic “godsend” which will allow everyone “power” over someone else. Polite, sophisticated, technologically feasible slavery. And the most profitable industry since T.V. and the computer.

5. The opportunity for anyone to live within a total environment of his or her choice, with mandatory adherence to the aesthetic and behavioral standards of sameâ€"Privately owned, operated and controlled environments as an alternative to homogenized and polyglot ones. The freedom to insularize oneself within a social milieu of personal well-being. An opportunity to feel, see, and hear that which is most aesthetically pleasing, without interference from those who would pollute or detract from that option.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I'll note in passing that in the BDSM community, where master and slave are known as top and bottom

Not to derail (I hope), just a correction: in the BDSM community, Masters and slaves are known as Masters (or Mistresses) and slaves, or Dominants and submissives, etc., to use those terms loosely. These denote roles within certain types of relationship dynamics. Tops and bottoms are known as tops and bottoms, and have to do with roles within certain activities. Though certainly not mutually exclusive, they're not interchangeable; they're distinct terms with different meanings.

Carry on.  :blush:

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Though certainly not mutually exclusive, they're not interchangeable; they're distict terms with different meanings.

Hmm.  You're totally correct, as I've discovered after googling.  I would swear that twenty years ago, when I took an interest in the subject, the terms top, dominant, and master were interchangeable, but they aren't today, and maybe they weren't back then either, and my memory is just faulty.  Thanks for correcting me.

EDIT: It bugged me that I had neglected to italicise the jargon words above, so I went back and italicised them.  No other edits.

Thanks for the informative post, I've got a couple of friends who are satanists and now I understand a bit more why we get along so well.

Funny story: I had to move on short notice and there was a ton of work to do so I tried to rally my friends, all of my religious friends who I'd helped move in the past suddenly had plans come up and couldn't help. Three of my friends showed up to help, a satanist and my gay agnostic friend along with his boyfriend. After thanking them for showing up when others failed my satanist friend simply said "You have a truck and I'm moving soon too. That, and you always have good beer"

Quote from: "DJAkuma"After thanking them for showing up when others failed my satanist friend simply said "You have a truck and I'm moving soon too. That, and you always have good beer"

Ha!  Spoken very Satanically! :cool:

Added to the prior three codifications I had already offered, this fourth and last completes what could be viewed as a primer on what someone is telling you when he or she says, "I'm a Satanist."  Bear in mind once again that a particular aesthetic, and a sense of drama, take priority over philosophical rigor, because it's assumed that if you're a Satanist, you exemplify common sense, and therefore you don't need things spood-fed to you.  Those who lack common sense may misinterpret, but whether they do or don't is of no consequence, for they are of no consequence.  The aesthetic and the sense of drama are where a lot of the fun derive, and when it comes to fully engaging with Satanism, there is only one reason for doing it - because it's fun.

As authored by Anton Szandor LaVey:

The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

3. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

9. Do not harm little children.

10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"The Five-Point Program, then, serves purely as a set of suggestions the Satanist might take into account when and if the Satanist decides to venture into the world with intent to leave a mark.

Later today you'll see an example of this.  I'll be posting a thread about strict taxation of churches.  I've googled the topic, and as far as I can tell, no one on the internet is seriously pushing this idea at the current time.  This surprises me a little.  Hence the thread I'll be posting later today.  The topic genuinely interests me, yet, by raising it for discussion, I'm incidentally adding energy to one of the Five Points.  That's how this sort of thing works.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

Could you please define magic?

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

Could you please define magic?

In the context of Satanism, and the proposition referenced above, magic would be impact on the outer world via ritual.  Only some Satanists perform ritual at all, and, of those, only some imagine that their rituals impact the outer world.  Those in the last category speculate that quantum mechanics and its theories regarding consciousness as a factor in physical causality will someday explain the impact of ritual on the outer world.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"In light of your post on Atheism's religion, Satanism...[...]

This is not a correct statement. It would be the equivalent of me saying that Theism's religion is the Cult of Cthulhu. The problem is that there is no specific religion for theism or atheism and it requires no religion at all to be either a theist or an atheist. Please stop trying to attach other things onto the terms atheism and atheist.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I do quite enjoy reading your stuff, ID.

So which is more important in life.  Truth, Beauty, or Good?

In light of your post on Atheism's religion, Satanism...   What is the best order to live life by?

This is the reason that Satanism is a horrible name for a religion.  Even apparently intelligent people take it to mean that all atheists are Satan worshipers.

Buddhism is another religion without a God.  Does that mean all atheists are Buddhists, too?

I refer you to this post (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6419#p94611) which illustrates that the name Satanism makes otherwise intelligent seeming people believe that all atheists worship the Christian evil God, Satan.

Why work to reinforce bigotry against atheists?  What is good about that?

Quote from: "Kylyssa"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I do quite enjoy reading your stuff, ID.

So which is more important in life.  Truth, Beauty, or Good?

In light of your post on Atheism's religion, Satanism...   What is the best order to live life by?

This is the reason that Satanism is a horrible name for a religion.  Even apparently intelligent people take it to mean that all atheists are Satan worshipers.

Buddhism is another religion without a God.  Does that mean all atheists are Buddhists, too?

Not even a part of the point.  I've read that thread and understand the reason(s) the proponents use "Satan".  I'm simply asking the question using the same "jargon" so it shouldn't be a point of contention to say "Satanists or ism".

Also please note that the question was specific to ID and specifically to his post, however anyone is encouraged to answer.  Sorry you took offense.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"In light of your post on Atheism's religion, Satanism...[...]

This is not a correct statement. It would be the equivalent of me saying that Theism's religion is the Cult of Cthulhu. The problem is that there is no specific religion for theism or atheism and it requires no religion at all to be either a theist or an atheist. Please stop trying to attach other things onto the terms atheism and atheist.

I think this has been made quite clear here, however ID is putting forth AN IDEA in which I'm relating to in other threads specifically to him and this IDEA.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Kylyssa"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I do quite enjoy reading your stuff, ID.

So which is more important in life.  Truth, Beauty, or Good?

In light of your post on Atheism's religion, Satanism...   What is the best order to live life by?

This is the reason that Satanism is a horrible name for a religion.  Even apparently intelligent people take it to mean that all atheists are Satan worshipers.

Buddhism is another religion without a God.  Does that mean all atheists are Buddhists, too?

Not even a part of the point.  I've read that thread and understand the reason(s) the proponents use "Satan".  I'm simply asking the question using the same "jargon" so it shouldn't be a point of contention to say "Satanists or ism".

Also please note that the question was specific to ID and specifically to his post, however anyone is encouraged to answer.  Sorry you took offense.

So you didn't mean you think atheists are Satanists?  Satanism isn't "atheism's religion" it is a religion that has no God.  It isn't the same thing.

I would certainly not call such a self-defeating title, loaded with superstitious baggage, "common sense". I think that's a major fail regarding the Common Sense category. Sure it's maybe fun and outrageous, but fun and outrageous are not necessarily congruent with common sense.

Quote from: "dloubet"I would certainly not call such a self-defeating title, loaded with superstitious baggage, "common sense". I think that's a major fail regarding the Common Sense category. Sure it's maybe fun and outrageous, but fun and outrageous are not necessarily congruent with common sense.

But neither are they necessarily incongruent.  If happiness is increased, and neither survival nor competitive advantage are threatened, then common sense is fulfilled.  Survival and competitive advantage are protected by merely declining to make public one's involvement.

The superstitious baggage is why the symbol works from a perspective of misanthropy.  The many, many goofballs out there who would genuinely be frightened by any mention of Satan represent, by their very fear, misanthropy's justification, and thus the symbol represents misanthropy's fullest expression.  And why are these goofballs frightened?  Because they lack common sense.  Disdain for that lack is at the very core of Satanism.

Far from self-defeating, the symbol of Satan is self-liberating.  It represents stepping out from the goofball majority and leaving it behind forever, mentally and emotionally.  It says, "What you fear, I do not.  What you run from, I wrap myself in.  If you fear this, then you would fear me, if only you knew.  I am what you fear.  I do not fear what I am."

Incidentally, there are Satanists who have designed their lives such that they won't lose any competitive advantage by making their involvement public.  These people are openly Satanic.  They have made the symbol an ultimate repudiation of all the goofball majority stands for.  "I am what you fear.  I do not fear you.  Know that what you fear stands fearless before you, and be doubly afraid."

If we are engaged in a culture war, then some of us have to attack.  We can't always merely be defending, for that is the path to defeat.  The open Satanist represents an attack.  Without saying a word or lifting a finger, without breaking any laws, without in any way being boorish or obnoxious and certainly without endangering anyone, the open Satanist attacks.  And the great irony is, the attack only works because the goofball majority are such, well, goofballs.  They themselves pull the trigger on the gun.  Their fear pulls the trigger.

From this you may see one reason why Satanists are unfailingly courteous.  Beyond their perception of courtesy as aesthetically pleasing and pridefully dignified, they also recognize it as strategically sound in the culture war.  "What?  You are offended by me?  Yet I stand here quietly, minding my own business, and in all my interactions I have behaved as a gentleman.  For the stranger carrying packages I opened the door, and held it open with a smile so he could pass through it gracefully.  Yet I offend you.  How curious."

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"In light of your post on Atheism's religion, Satanism...[...]

This is not a correct statement. It would be the equivalent of me saying that Theism's religion is the Cult of Cthulhu. The problem is that there is no specific religion for theism or atheism and it requires no religion at all to be either a theist or an atheist. Please stop trying to attach other things onto the terms atheism and atheist.

I think this has been made quite clear here, however ID is putting forth AN IDEA in which I'm relating to in other threads specifically to him and this IDEA.

I am perfectly fine with that, just don't misrepresent any of the ideas.

Especialy relevant to this message board, I think, is an attitude often professed by Satanists, and identified by them as, I-Theism.  The I-Theist enthrones self as personal deity in three specific ways: (1) self as Creator; (2) self as Savior; (3) self as Holy Spirit.

The Self as Creator concept resonates with the existence precedes essence concept of the philosopher Sartres.  I can make myself into what I choose to make myself - within the bounds of common sense.  My ability to make myself has limits, obviously - it isn't absolute.  I can't make myself into Spider-Man.  But there are a great many things I could make myself into.

The Self as Savior concept resonates with what we've been discussing on my 12 Steps thread.  The Satanist knows that in the end, it is my own wisdom, my own valor, and my own perseverance that must bring about salvation in my life here on Earth.  There is a corrollary, of course - Self as Demon.  It is my own cowardice, my own folly, and my own lack of follow-through that will bring about damnation in my life here on Earth.  Savior and Demon are often at war with one another, but both are me, and only me.

The Self as Holy Spirit concept expresses itself three ways: (1) it is I who decide my own epistemology; (2) it is I who decide my own aesthetic; and (3) it is I who decide my own system of ethics, be it moral or practical, and that decision too is my own.  Having decided my own epistemology, I decide what is true.  Having decided my own aesthetic, I decide what is beautiful.  Having decided my own system of ethics, I decide what is good and what is evil, from either a moral or a practical perspective, whichever I decide upon.

The terminology may be unappealing to some atheists, but certainly the underlying message is one that most (perhaps all) atheists embrace.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"The terminology may be unappealing to some atheists, but certainly the underlying message is one that most (perhaps all) atheists embrace.

...except for the socialist ones, and some of the buddhist ones, and some of those other ones, too.

I just really don't like the terminology....I also don't think ethics are self determined; they have to be contemplated within the context of a social group as to do otherwise defeats the purpose of morals...to allow us to get along with each other

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"The terminology may be unappealing to some atheists, but certainly the underlying message is one that most (perhaps all) atheists embrace.

...except for the socialist ones, and some of the buddhist ones, and some of those other ones, too.

Why would socialism or Buddhism conflict with making oneself, saving oneself, or inspiring oneself, as described in my prior post?

Socialism, as I understand it, is a political ideology centered on the class struggle, the rights of workers to the fruits of their labors, and economic equality.  It doesn't seem to have any bearing on one's relationship to oneself.  Satanists can embrace socialism.
 
Buddhism, as I understand it, is a methodology for achieving inner peace by quieting thought, quieting emotion, and quieting appetite.  This methodology can be viewed as self-making, self-saving, and self-inspring.  Satanists can embrace Buddhism.

Quote from: "Whitney"I just really don't like the terminology....

Fair enough.

QuoteI also don't think ethics are self determined; they have to be contemplated within the context of a social group as to do otherwise defeats the purpose of morals...to allow us to get along with each other

Yet it is you who have determined for yourself what the purpose of morals is.  Other thinkers have offered other purposes for morals; for example, personal happiness, or mental health, or self-actualization.  Additionally, having decided that morality's purpose is to allow us to get along with each other, you probably decide for yourself what behaviors are most conducive to us all getting along.  Would I be right about that?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Yet it is you who have determined for yourself what the purpose of morals is.  Other thinkers have offered other purposes for morals; for example, personal happiness, or mental health, or self-actualization.  Additionally, having decided that morality's purpose is to allow us to get along with each other, you probably decide for yourself what behaviors are most conducive to us all getting along.  Would I be right about that?

No, I think we can use studies of other animals as well as humans to prove that all social creatures develop some form of moral system for the purpose of getting along as a group.  If morality is viewed as an evolved trait then it means that there are right and wrong actions based on how it affects society and with study we can develop a formula or test for figuring out what is right and wrong.  It's not just people making whatever up based on some arbitrary basis; there are likely biological factors controlling our reactions to moral questions just like we are biologically programed to be grossed out by certain imagery and smells. I don't think I'm just making this stuff up incorrectly based on my own limited knowledge because scientists have written papers and books on the matter (of which I have yet to read though).

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"The terminology may be unappealing to some atheists, but certainly the underlying message is one that most (perhaps all) atheists embrace.

...except for the socialist ones, and some of the buddhist ones, and some of those other ones, too.

Why would socialism or Buddhism conflict with making oneself, saving oneself, or inspiring oneself, as described in my prior post?

Socialism, as I understand it, is a political ideology centered on the class struggle, the rights of workers to the fruits of their labors, and economic equality.  It doesn't seem to have any bearing on one's relationship to oneself.  Satanists can embrace socialism.
 
Buddhism, as I understand it, is a methodology for achieving inner peace by quieting thought, quieting emotion, and quieting appetite.  This methodology can be viewed as self-making, self-saving, and self-inspring.  Satanists can embrace Buddhism.

Absolutely, but depending on how deep into all of these things you want to get, you have to choose on some points or there will be some contradictions.


Since you seem to be talking about philosophy and not dogma, picking and choosing is perfectly acceptable, is it not?  Of course, some satanists might not really consider you to be a "real" satanist if you do this.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"Absolutely, but depending on how deep into all of these things you want to get, you have to choose on some points or there will be some contradictions.

Could you provide some specific contradictions between socialism and Satanism, and between Buddhism and Satanism?  If we're moving beyond I-Theism to some of the other components of Satanism, I may grant your position, but right now I'm too unsure of specifics.

QuoteSince you seem to be talking about philosophy and not dogma, picking and choosing is perfectly acceptable, is it not?  Of course, some satanists might not really consider you to be a "real" satanist if you do this.

Here again I would need specifics.  Satanists view the Nine Satanic Statements, the Nine Satanic Sins, Pentagonal Revisionism, and the Eleven Rules of the Earth as common sense for the Satanist.  For a Satanist to reject any of those (or any portions of those) would be viewed as rejecting common sense.  Any alleged dichotomy between philosophy on one hand, and dogma on the other, doesn't really apply here.  It isn't dogma to say, "That stove is hot.  Don't touch it unless you want to get burned."  But it isn't philosophy, either, as I understand philosophy, since what has been said isn't open to debate.

Quote from: "Whitney"No, I think we can use studies of other animals as well as humans to prove that all social creatures develop some form of moral system for the purpose of getting along as a group.  If morality is viewed as an evolved trait then it means that there are right and wrong actions based on how it affects society and with study we can develop a formula or test for figuring out what is right and wrong.

To the extent I understand what you've said, Whitney, I would pick out the following premises or hypotheses:
1. Non-human animals have moral systems.
2. Non-human animals developed their moral systems for a purpose.
3. Human animals developed their moral systems for the same purpose as non-human animals did.
4. Morality is best viewed as an evolved trait.
5. An evolved trait can be evaluated from a natural selection (survival) perspective.
6. Survival as a measuring rod allows morality to rest on objective grounds.

Of the above, only the fifth is self-evident.  The others are all debatable, and have in fact been debated quite vigorously by philosophers and scientific theoreticians.  Reasonable people have contended instead as follows:
1. Non-human animals do not have moral systems, but merely exhibit behaviors we human observers anthropomorphise as being moral.
2. Non-human animals do not necessarily develop behaviors for a purpose, as sometimes these behaviors simply arise out of genetics.
3. Human animals have developed moral systems for a variety of purposes, not all having to do with people getting along with one another, an example being the moral code of the ancient Jews, which had many moral mandates surrounding one's relationship to God, as opposed to one's relationship with other people.
4. Morality is best viewed as either intrinsically true or intrinsically false, without reference to natural selection.
5. (No reasonable person would dispute the fifth point above.)
6. Taking survival as a measuring rod for morality is itself an arbitrary choice, and therefore cannot provide the ground for a non-arbitrary (objective) morality.

What I am attempting to do in the above is demonstrate the debatability of a certain perspective regarding morality, as a way of suggesting the debatability of absolutely any perspective regarding morality.  If we grant universal debatability, which admittedly is hard (if not impossible) to prove, although I intuitively accept it and have never encountered a logical reason for rejecting it that held up under sustained scrutiny, then as soon as we encounter someone having come to any sort of conclusions regarding morality, we must identify those conclusions as self-identified and self-chosen for reasons self-prioritized.
 

QuoteI don't think I'm just making this stuff up incorrectly based on my own limited knowledge because scientists have written papers and books on the matter (of which I have yet to read though).

You are entirely correct that scientists have written papers and books on the matter.  I would only contend that not everyone agrees with what these scientists have written.  Not even all scientists agree.  Certainly all philosophers don't agree.  Here again, my only point is this: debatability implies the necessity of making a choice based on something other than objective fact alone.  That choice is what I have described as Self as Holy Spirit, a component of I-Theism.

but my position is that I am inclined to think that in time we will understand the minds of humans and animals more and as we do that will discover that morality is driven by hard science in a predictable manner...so I wouldn't agree with the satanist view of morality even if my position is potentially incorrect.

Quote from: "Whitney"but my position is that I am inclined to think that in time we will understand the minds of humans and animals more and as we do that will discover that morality is driven by hard science in a predictable manner...so I wouldn't agree with the satanist view of morality even if my position is potentially incorrect.

Fair enough.  Is it your position, then, that your own morals are the result of natural selection and its impact on what genes you were born with?  Or is it instead, perhaps, your position that your own morals are the ones you were taught by society, and the reason society taught you those morals is because natural selection favored societies that taught those morals to their members?  In either case, I would ask you, did you ever engage in the mental exercise of questioning, pruning, and refining your own morals?  If you ever did, how do you relate that to either the genetics hypothesis or the naturally selected society hypothesis, or some other hypothesis that represents your position with respect to the origin of your own morals?

I think we should expect to find that our feelings towards moral questions have a genetic component (we already know about empathy in humans and other animals) and that we'll find it is based on how our actions affect society; I just don't know how we go about deciding what society we actually care about:  does it stop at family, friends, work mates, community, city, state, country, humans, all life?  I think what we view as our 'tribe' may be what ultimately creates the differences in moral views because each 'tribe' has different needs.  This wold also explain why religious people take on the morals of their religious group.  This would also mean that choosing that tribe is learned or even actively changed throughout one's life based on various reasons.

I don't agree that people just make stuff up for all sorts of reasons and call it morals...I don't even think it's right to call something a moral idea if it isn't related to how it affects others; it's just doing whatever you want if others aren't taken into consideration.

Quote from: "Whitney"I think we should expect to find that our feelings towards moral questions have a genetic component (we already know about empathy in humans and other animals) and that we'll find it is based on how our actions affect society; I just don't know how we go about deciding what society we actually care about:  does it stop at family, friends, work mates, community, city, state, country, humans, all life?

I agree that declining to undermine or sabotage one's tribe has probably been selected for.  The problem nowadays is deciding the boundaries and parameters of tribe - my paraphrase of what you say above.  Currently in Western society, individuals make that decision idiosyncratically, as determined by their genes and their personal histories.

QuoteI think what we view as our 'tribe' may be what ultimately creates the differences in moral views because each 'tribe' has different needs.  This would also explain why religious people take on the morals of their religious group.  This would also mean that choosing that tribe is learned or even actively changed throughout one's life based on various reasons.

Agreed on all points.  I would even go further in the same direction, by replacing the "based on various reasons" phrase with, "as determined by their genes and their personal histories."  Do you agree with that replacement?

Genes and personal histories are relative to the individual.  Personal histories are, for our purposes, random, in the sense of being unpredictable given current knowledge.  But perhaps the genes responding to personal history to choose tribe are strongly consistent across the human genome, such that, deviants from the norm would be viewed as mutants.  We don't know this to be the case, but neither do we know it not to be.  Time and further research will tell.

Still, if we grant strong consistency with respect to genes, we are faced nonetheless with high variability with respect to personal histories.  This is a relativity we can't escape short of a radical program of social control on a scale never attempted and never even imagined except in fiction.  And even if a group of powerful people make the attempt, their goals will be determined by their own genes and their own personal histories, the latter being highly variable.

QuoteI don't agree that people just make stuff up for all sorts of reasons and call it morals...I don't even think it's right to call something a moral idea if it isn't related to how it affects others; it's just doing whatever you want if others aren't taken into consideration.

If others can include God then I agree with the above.  I would certainly grant that others can include such tribes as the State or one's political party, or one's church.  In fact, I am gravitating to the notion that a personal God really represents, deep in the psyche of its adherents, their church personified.  Thus, for the Greek Orthodox, Jesus is a symbol that represents the Greek Orthodox Church - and of course the Greek Orthodox Church is a tribe.  We seem to be on solid ground if we assert that all gods are tribal symbols representing the tribe.
 
Morality as tribalism and tribalism as genetically compelled and naturally selected is a promising construct.  I would be astonished if science ever contradicted or even seriously questioned this notion.  The high variability of personal histories as one of the two key components of tribal identification would tend to undermine any possibility of discovering a systematic morality - but maybe morality doesn't have to be systematic, or else maybe we should invent a system, rather than trying to discover it.

The problem with leaving morality unsystematic is that we get no help in any of our social projects.  We want wars to stop.  We want pollution to stop.  We want starvation to end.  We want illness to be eradicated.  We want human population growth to be brought under control or its deleterious effects otherwise mitigated.  Unsystematic morality won't help us with any of these.

The other option is to invent systematic morality.  This of course would represent Self as Holy Spirit, and thus be supportive of the Satanic concept of I-Theism, but at this point in our discussion, Whitney, I find myself more interested in the proposition you've put forward and I have merely paraphrased: morality as tribalism and tribalism as genetically compelled and naturally selected.  The power of this proposition is its almost inevitable capacity to trigger head-nods of agreement in anyone who hears it, or at least any atheist, Deist, or pantheist who hears it.  If we take this proposition as our starting point, we then can simply decide to posit the desirability of the broadest possible boundaries and parameters for tribe, which of course leads us to Homo sapiens as the ideal tribe choice.

Once Homo sapiens is chosen as our tribe, our naturally selected genetic tendency toward tribalism will compel us to want wars to stop, pollution to stop, starvation to end, illness to be eradicated, and population growth to be brought under control or its deleterious effects otherwise mitigated.  The practical good, the earthly benefit to earthly creatures, will be immense.

I find myself imagining a marketing campaign centered around the slogan, "My tribe is Homo sapiens."  I picture T-shirts, coffee cups, mousepads and gym bags with the slogan emblazoned on it.  Such a simple thing could help ferment the salvation of our species in the minds of our best and brightest.