Hey, could you send us a bunch of pamphlets so that we can use them to harass a local Christian church?

The Church of Satan does not proselytize, since actively trying to convert people to a religion would itself be antithetical to Satanism. Satanism is intentionally not for everybody. As such, we see no need to print religious tracts for mass public distribution.

Furthermore, we don’t condone harassing people who are otherwise minding their own business, regardless of how ludicrous we may find their religious beliefs. We’ve also found that such targeted harassment can sometimes backfire, making religious zealots double-down on their zealotry.

How can you be an atheist and a Satanist? Atheists don't believe in Satan nor any other deities.

Satanism, which is not to be confused with the act of Satan worship, is a non-theistic religion that utilizes Satan as a metaphor. We do not believe in the existence of any actual supernatural deities, whether that’s Satan, God, or any of the other countless gods or goddesses of mythology, whom we all view as merely inventions of the human imagination. Note that the one and only requirement for being an atheist is not believing in a deity (atheism = “a” + “theos” = “without” “deity”).

If you Satanists are atheists, then why not just call yourselves 'atheists' instead of 'Satanists'?

The same reason why Christians call themselves “Christians” instead of just “monotheists”, or why Hindus call themselves “Hindus” and not just “polytheists”. The words atheism, monotheism, and polytheism describe absolutely nothing more than how many deities one believes to exist. When somebody says “I am an atheist”, all that should be assumed is that the person does not believe in any deities. The statement does not tell you any details about that person’s philosophical convictions, code of ethics, grand worldviews of life, or beliefs about humanity’s supposed role in the universe. So as atheism merely describes one aspect of Satanism (namely the fact that we don’t believe in deities), and because a person can obviously be an atheist without being a Satanist, the word “atheism” is not a sufficiently descriptive label to distinguish Satanists from non-Satanists.

Is Satanism a religion? Is it a type of atheism? How can Satanism be a religion if it doesn’t believe in deities?

Satanism is explicitly referred to as a religion in The Satanic Bible and other literature from the Church of Satan. Satanism is more specifically though an example of a non-theistic religion, meaning that belief in any sort of actual gods is simply not part of it. There are many other examples of non-theistic religions in the world, such as Theravada Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, The Raelian Movement, Samkhya Hinduism, and so on. For that matter, some religious organizations welcome atheist members, such as the Unitarian Universalist church. These examples are indeed religions, not just “philosophies”, as they include not only philosophy but also dogma, a code of ethics, symbolism, ceremony, and other components which define and describe a religion. So too is the case with Satanism.

Furthermore, as the term “atheism” describes nothing more than not having a belief in deity, it would be more accurate to say that atheism is simply one of many traits which Satanism happens to have, rather than calling Satanism a “type of atheism” or “atheism plus this”. Otherwise, it’s rather like referring to an entire car as “a type of wheel”.

What is the Church of Satan doing to fight for [insert favorite socio-political cause here]? Or to fight for the separation of church and state?

The Church of Satan is not a political organization, nor a charity group. We stand for Satanism, a shamelessly selfish and adversarial religion that serves the individual and not the collective. As such, we leave it up to each Church of Satan member to decide for themselves which public causes, if any, are in their best personal interest to support, and to what extent.

We have many members who are decidedly active in causes such as animal welfare, environmental awareness, political campaigns, the right to bear arms, health charities, scientific research, LGBT concerns, and more. But being Satanists, their chosen pursuit is ultimately based on rational self-interest. A Satanist for example may decide to donate to a research center for a disease that affects them or someone important to them, or support a cause that strives to make their town a safer place. A Satanist may even just get a sense of pride out of the mere act of giving, in and of itself. But we are not driven by a guilty feeling of obligation to serve “the greater good”, nor do we believe that utter devotion to an impersonal cause is a valid substitution for an individual life of purpose. Thus there is no rationale for a Satanist to crusade for these sorts of things on behalf of “The Church of Satan” or “Satanism”.

Furthermore, to self-righteously broadcast doing “good” causes in the name of Satan is inherently nonsensical. More importantly, it would hardly benefit a company, movement, or public figure for them to be seen getting an official endorsement from Satanists, since we are naturally “the bad guys”.

When it comes specifically to the separation of church and state, there are already several well-established organizations specifically dedicated to fighting for that cause, including the Freedom From Religion Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Americans United (AU), not to mention similar groups outside of the US. Individual Church of Satan members who wish to actively support one or more of these groups are free to do so. In the meantime, there is no rational reason to repurpose the Church of Satan as an organization to duplicate the efforts of these groups, nor do so as some other organization under the banner of “Satanism”.

How can you be atheists if you believe in magick?

Satanists do not practice the “magick” found in various occult religions, which purports to be supernatural in nature, and is spelled with a “k” in an effort to distinguish it from “stage magic” entertainment. Instead, just as Satanists utilize Satan as a metaphor, so too do we utilize the term “magic” as a metaphor. Magic is explicitly defined in The Satanic Bible as, “The change in situations or events in accordance with one’s will, which would, using normally accepted circumstances, be unchangeable”. As this does not require belief in the supernatural, let alone belief in the existence of any deities, the practice does not conflict with atheism. When a Satanic ritual makes use of mythological names or concepts such as “Satan” or “Hell”, it is knowingly done for theatrical, psychodramatic purposes.

Wasn't Satanism invented specifically to troll Christians?

No. Satanism was created out of the need for a religion embracing carnality and personal gratification, rather than spirituality and self-sacrifice. Satanism is not merely doing the opposite of whatever the Holy Bible says, nor does it see its goal as trying to upset evangelicals. Satanism’s philosophy makes it just as anti-Islamic or anti-Buddhist as it does anti-Christian. However Satan was chosen as the most fitting mascot for this religion, as in the modern western world he is -- even to non-Christians -- the most recognizable, emotionally-triggering, adversarial figure from mythology.

Is Satanism simply Ayn Rand's Objectivism philosophy, plus ritual? Did Anton LaVey really define it as that?

No. These claims seem to trace back to a December, 1970 article from The Washington Post on the then-rising popularity of witchcraft. In that article, Church of Satan founder Anton LaVey is quoted as saying, “I give them Ayn Rand with trappings”, but the journalist doesn’t really provide any context for this isolated quotation. Given that the rest of the article focuses on white witchcraft authors such as Sybil Leek and Raymond Buckland, and was written around the peak of the hippie movement, one reasonable guess is that the journalist was looking for a soundbite to show how the Church of Satan contrasted sharply with all of them.

Regardless, the phrase “Ayn Rand’s Objectivism plus ritual” is still a gross oversimplification and far from a sufficient description of Satanism. Although there is some philosophical overlap between Objectivism and Satanism (namely a non-theistic worldview and valuing the individual over the collective), these seem to come not from Rand directly influencing LaVey, but rather the two sharing some common philosophical influences, such as Nietzche. More importantly, there are some fundamental differences between the two philosophies, even without taking ritual into consideration. Satanic statements numbers 7 and 8 for example conflict with Objectivism. For an in-depth analysis on the differences between Satanism and Objectivism, listen to episode #4 of the Satansplain podcast. Also see this article on Satanism vs. Objectivism.

Aren’t there different denominations of Satanism? Isn’t your refusal to recognize them just religious fundamentalism / oppressive gatekeeping? Isn’t that a ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy, like when Catholics and Protestants accuse each other of not being ‘the true Christians’?

No. Protestantism and Catholicism for example are two different denominations of the same religion (Christianity), not two different religions, because they still ultimately share the same theological origins, the same main scriptures, and the same core beliefs which distinguish Christianity from the other religions of the world. The same simply cannot be said about the dozens of largely unrelated groups mislabeled as “Satanists”, as they are too theologically dissimilar to be considered sects of the same religion. As there is no evidence of an actual codified religion calling itself “Satanism” until the establishment of the Church of Satan in 1966, we see no justifiable reason to misuse the same label of “Satanism” to describe some unrelated and fundamentally different belief system.

Was Anton LaVey really a deist or secret theist? And then did Peter H. Gilmore decidedly change Satanism to be atheistic instead?

No. There are numerous, well-documented examples of Anton LaVey’s stating his own non-theistic worldview, which is also consistent with The Satanic Bible. LaVey also did not even eschew the term “atheist” itself, as noted in this quote from an interview by Eugene S. Robinson:

“Look, I’m an atheist,” LaVey said finally, smiling ever so slightly. “Satan is symbolically representative for us, and when you see the kind of liberating freedom that people are feeling when they say something like ‘Hail, Satan,’ well, it seems like it’s needed. Hating yourself for being human seems pointless.”

Is it still wrong to tell people ‘Satanists are atheists’ when it’s possible for a Satanist to be ‘agnostic’, or ‘deist’, or ‘apatheist’, or some other alternative? And if Satanists believe they are their own god, then doesn't that mean they aren't atheists?

The term “atheism” describes absolutely nothing more than not believing in the existence of any deities. This is the long-understood meaning of the word atheism as it is used overwhelmingly by atheists themselves. As Satanism asserts that the whole notion of deities is a creation of the human imagination, Satanists are thus atheists.

Satanists may also be described as “I-theists”, meaning we are our own “gods”, but only in the symbolic sense of serving ourselves and taking the ultimate responsibility for our own lives, and obviously not as a declaration of being an actual supernatural deity. An analogy may be made to the entrepreneur who can simultaneously say “I have no boss” and “I am my own boss”, without contradiction.

Contrary to popular misconception, atheism does not require making the positive assertion that no deities exist. Likewise, “agnosticism” is not some sort of half-way point between theism and atheism, nor a third alternative to the two, as atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Self-described “apatheists” who claim that the term “God” cannot be not sufficiently defined enough to accept nor reject are nonetheless still people without a belief in deity, and thus still atheists.

Deism, which is essentially the belief that there’s a “God” who created the universe but plays no role in human affairs, may seem compatible with Satanism, as the entire notion of cosmic origins, deity or no deity, is ultimately irrelevant to the principles of Satanism. But as The Satanic Bible points out early on, “Man has always created his gods, rather than his gods creating him.”, further explaining that whether one chooses to call the perceived balancing force of nature “God” or “by no name at all” (atheism), in either case it “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 [...] The Satanist realizes that man, and the action and reaction of the universe, is responsible for everything, and doesn’t mislead himself into thinking that someone cares.”

Rather than trying to explain all of the above philosophical intricacies to today’s journalists (who are often willfully clueless, only quote in soundbites, and falsely presume Satanists are devil worshipers), we often find it much more effective to use the simplified two-word response of: “We’re atheists”.