On the flip side, I had an English teacher in high school that went to Catholic schools and had never heard of evolution until she went to college. She said that she was completely caught off guard.
On the other flip side, I went to catholic school (primary, secondary, highschool) and I didn't hear about micro/macro evolution until I started posting on slashdot 3 years ago. I also took 2.5 years of genertics without ever hearing about the macro.micro evolution.
Evolution, women becoming ordained and preists getting married are three entirely different subjects.
Evolution is scientific.
Women being ordained is theological. (By the way, can you find any instance of a judaic priest? rabbi!=priest)
Preists getting married is a thousand year old rule (not doctrine or theological in anyway) that was instituted by Pope Gregory VII so that priests would have more time to carry out theological work instead of having to take care of a family.
Also to stop preists from willing away church land to their children/wives/mitresses.
However, the U.S. figures are here. It's difficult to state that these figures are anything more than a reasonable approximation, but they do show that other churches combined outnumber the Catholic church in the U.S. It's quite likely that the spread is greater than those numbers would have you believe, as it doesn't include a large number of community churches that have no denominational affiliation.
Only in the US, in Canada the catholics out number the protestants and in a world wide context the protestants are a 1/4 of all of christianity. This stems from many early American settlers being Puritans and other protestants.
1. The Big Bang cannot be true as it contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Actualyl no, the first law of thermo dynamics means energy is conserved. The big bang was a the sudden expansion of a signle point of energy into a larger poitn of energy. Energy was conserved.
2. Evolution cannot be true as it contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Again no, it states that things generally proceed towards states of higher entropy if no other force acts upon it. If it is more favorable to have less entropy for some other reason then so long as this reason can counter act the natural tendancy to entropy then it is ok.
My opinion on the universe:
1. The universe started as a complex and orderly living entity, which, over time, began to expand. As it aged, it began to expand, and the life began to DEVOLVE until it reached our current state, humans. You can even witness this devolving process. Think. 10 or so years ago, we didn't have so many hurricanes, earthquakes, or other devastating natural disasters. People are becoming stupider by the day.
You are indeed evidence of this progression towards ignorance. As for the weather, it isnt' a sign of the appocalypse, it's a sign of global warming. If you cohere to your apparent political leaning you deny that there is global wamrign as well.
2. As for where the entire mass of atoms came from, either there is a God(which is possible), or the universe has always existed, and there in some incomprehensible way, time started a billion years back, and the universe came into existence with time. And remember this. There might be something larger than a universe...
String theory may be correct and this universe is simply a thin slice out of the total dimensional space of the over all universe. There is a God, I beleive so. However his design was through evolution and not through mysterious proccesses that no one has any idea of. Evolution doesn't falsify that there is a god but to interject that some designs need a god to make them is stupid. Science is science, Religion is religion. Don't have one interfere with the other.
If the goal is to reduce polution on the planet, it should be based on land area. We are talking about a treaty between *countries* and not individuals. A nation of one million people with the land mass of America, under Kyoto, *should* be allowed to pollute just as much as nation with the same land mass and one billion people. Perhaps it'll encourage the country with one billion people to consider sustainable growth....I guess that nation has....
America pollute in total more then any other country. Almost as much as any other 2.
Re:We can all breathe a bit easier
on
Chinese Eco-Cities
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
As China is one of the biggest polluters and is not bound by the Kyoto environmental treaty, having them take this step on their own initiative to create cleaner cities is certainly a welcome sight.
The cities are being developed by a British group, and I'm not sure how well that bodes for the final designs. Britain has some of the most "natural urban growth" cities in the Western world. It will be interesting to see how well they will be able to come up with something that is both ecologically friendly and unique and attractive.
Per capita they polluter much less then your average American... even your average european. So you condescending attitude is assinine. Europe and America used slave labour and virtually slave labour to industrialize as well as putting out massive pollution. China is trying to industrialize and modernize without the same harships and human suffering. There is significant amount of pollution in China but wiht 1.3 billlion people it's very hard not to. India is much worse, and per capita Canada is one of the worst with America coming in second.
...could you tell me the difference between the impact of a grenade and a bomb?
A grenade is ussually a bite of something like cordite wrapped with a etched wire in a casing or the casing itself is etched. When the cordite explodes the shrapnel is what kills you. In a suicide bombing set up, there ussually is a lot more explosive and they don't depend on nails to do the damage. So yes, you can tell the difference between a bomb impact and a grenade impact.
While I agree sometimes it is better to spend the money and get more efficient, I'm not sure I want my tax dollars wasted on something like this if the govt decides to buy a single expensive solar cell rather than some body armor for some troops on the ground facing suicide bombers...
Body armour may stop shrapnel. Body armour can't stop kenetic force. So it's good versus grenades, small arms, peripheral range of explosions, but piss poor against a bomb attack.
The whole concept of "who has more to lose" is ridiculous anyway. No matter what the US or the UN do, people will find a way to keep the networks connected. Neither the US nor the EU is going to enact criminal penalties for connecting to the "other network", so businesses will just find a way to paper over the gap, just as they do with telephone systems.
True enough, but bandwidth will diminish. Meaning those who want it and know how, can get to it. The rest are fucked. For all intents and purposes this means the networks are seperate.
Software patents would have prevented the web from emerging today if it didn't already exist. It might have still come into existence, but only as an expensive proprietary protocol/service like Compuserve was.
It's a chicken vs Egg thing. The US is currently so litigous because of the internet, so if the Internet did not exsisst and I just invented it and had militry.gov support. It would all happen all over again.
The "half a day of WTFs" was the one on our side, you idiot. I don't kid myself that American content is utterly useless (heck I'm on/.) just like you shouldn't kid yourself that the world outside of the USA is worthless. Of course if I have to base my judgement on the American tourists I meet here...
The thing is, your post I was replying to refered to negotiating power. I am saying that since the other powers have neither anythign to give that the Americans want, nordo they have anythign to take away you basically have to build your own network or play by their rules. So they actually hold all the cards. Meaning you have no position to negotiate. Truly the vast majority of the content ont he Inet that is english, is American or Canadian. So neither of us will miss you if you do decide to take your ball and go home.
I don't understand how you could misinterpret my post, but you managed to do it. I repeat: you (you AMERICANS, is that clear now? good) are not in any position to negotiate because you have no negotiating power. Want to "unplug the internet", as you seem to imply you can do? Please do. After about half a day of WTF?!s our root servers will be humming nicely and you can bet we won't be sad because of our tragic loss. The real problems come later, when half of the world begins using our so-called root servers, while half of the world uses yours... now there are no real "root" servers anymore, are there? This is what is going to happen unless you cooperate. And this is the content of the post you managed to misunderstand.
They wouldn't notice at all. The amount of times an american will look up foreign content is mayber 3-4 times a year. Mostly for japanese porn. The rest of the world is in no posiition to negotiate because the majority of the real content out there is american. You can disconnect yourselves completely and they wouldn't notice at all. That why this won't be a veyr complicated war. One side declare "all right, full digital sanction you sir" and the other side will be "huh? no more europorn. That alright. Local content is less disgusting".
The whole point is: They wouldn't even notice that your gone. But you would notice that 70% of all the porn is gone, all of the media is gone, and P2P is now much much emptier.
If you object to this tactic of artificial shortages, then start the counter-spin about the 360. If you dont' care, then buy the machine. Although I think that there is enough counter-spin already to sink the 360 at launch.
I know a friend who has seen the dev kit, worked on it, and is thoruoughly underwhelmed. He's going to wait till halo 3 comes out to get it instead of picking it up at launch. He's not particularly pro anything (except sega btu they went undeR) he has all 3 current systems, plus nearly every major system before that. He has always bought them at release but will wait this time.
Even more off topic: Weird, this kinda holds for the first Buddha and the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). Was even Jesus without sin (well at least he was without original sin) -- I'm asking because I don't know. I can see why a cult of personality would form around any sinless man!
Jesus teachings survived, his personal history didn't so we don't know. There is a 30 year gap where we don't know anythign about him. Buddha as well is steeped in the fog of time. Ditto for Zoroaster. We are fairly certain that Mohammad was a conquering warrior philosopher.
Why does it make so many people who cling to their notion of 'science' so angry to acknowledge religious belief has an intellectuatl base, too? Still angry that you had to go to Sunday School? Give it up.
BTW. I'm not angry at all that I went to a catholic high school. I am actually a regular church goer(SIC). I pay my tithes, contribute at my church, volenteer for stuff and go to the occasional bible study. I'm just not a literlist and most christians aren't. But it is literalist/fundementalists that give christianity a bad image.
Somehow I get the feeling that Medical Textbooks don't get into detailed dosage information.
'Adding stuff to the curriculum that undermines the basic principles' is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Knowledge and learning comes out of a dialogue, and if nobody challanges scientific ideas they revert to religious dogmas. Remember, 'scientists' 100 years ago believed in many things that hadn't been fully explored, and which were plain untrue.
This whole mess boils down to dogmatists on both sides.
Why does it make so many people who cling to their notion of 'science' so angry to acknowledge religious belief has an intellectuatl base, too? Still angry that you had to go to Sunday School? Give it up.
The problem is the misinformation is very bad because it's not simply wrong, it also contrary to everythign else taught in biology. By your arguement we shoudl introduce a random idea in the printing of each page of every text book. Because this would add change to the ciriculum. It's nto the adherance to dogma that is the problem. Evolution changes all the time. The exact paths are revised. some relationships changes. ect... The basic theory is liek thermo dynamics. True in all cases we know of. Do you see thermo dynamics beign revised often? how about offering alternatives to thermo dynamics. That exactly why people who know this shit often object to peopel who dont' throwing ideas in. Your trying to insist a well supported idea liek themro dynamics is wrong and offering a ludicrious alternative. In such a case not teaching anythign at all woudl be better then teaching mis information.
It should be very obvious why that is related. The comment was about not remembering Bill Clinton "pushing" school prayer. Pronography and prayer don't go together, they're opposites. The Justice Department is part of the Executive branch which takes it's direction and instructions from the President. Of course the poster doesn't remember Bill Clinton "pushing" school prayer, Bill Clinton was "pushing" the opposite. The poster may as well say they don't remember Osama bin Laden ever eating a barbecue pork sandwich or Adolf Hitler throwing bar mitzvahs.
uhh. yeah I stand by my comment. That is a non-sequiter. Pornography? Adolf hilter was 1/4 jew. OSama wasn't a veyr good muslim when he was younger either. But he was also very rich.
"No, then they are not truely Satanists (sounds alot like hedonists, frankly, Wiki isn't correct on eveything you know). What you are refering to is most commonly called atheism (there is no god/satan/blah blah blah) or perhaps agnosticism (i could give a rats ass if there's a god/satan/etc, a more powerful standpoint in my opinion)."
Sigh. "Satanism" as you're definining it is "gothic satanism" - you know, the baby-eating, virgin-sacrificing type of Satanism that doesn't actually exist. Look up Satanism in the Encyclopaedia Britannica if you don't believe me, or any other reputable source; the Wiki was handy, which is why I used it.
"Satanism" as you describe it doesn't exist outside of fiction. I'm not terribly surprised that you have no idea what I'm talking about, but before continuing this conversation, why don't you look it up for yourself?
The stanists I have known have been 1- like the LaVey stanists 2- Goth kids who grew up catholic and needed to rebel 3- Loners who liked beign in a new group 4- Semi-Evil people who truly wanted to be evil but ended up beign somewhat creepy but still not evil.
Hey, I've got an idea! Why don't you call me a dummy twice in order to bolster your argument? That'll work!
As for your other points: here's what Wiki says about Satanism. "Satanism is a religious, semi-religious and/or philosophical movement whose adherents recognize Satan as an archetype, pre-cosmic force, or some aspect of human nature. Although named for Satan, a name associated with evil and temptation, Satanism is more commonly the name given to certain spiritual paths which emphasize the Left-Hand Path, as opposed to the much more common Right-Hand Path. Left-Handers believe in spiritual enrichment through their own work on themselves, and that ultimately they are answerable only to themselves, while Right-Handers believe in spiritual enrichment through the dissolution or submission of the self to (or into) something greater. Many Satanists do not in fact worship a deity called Satan, or necessarily any other deity, nor do they follow a principle of evil. This aspect of their beliefs is very commonly misunderstood."
Most Satanists, in fact, deny the existence of both God and Satan, which is why my original comment (snide as it was) is applicable.
Satanism is a reaction to organized religion. It represent no such things as left hand way. This is merely rationalization from people who do so because few people can view themselves as wanting to be evil. Satanism is a catch all for everybody who had religious parents, felt the need to rebel and chose the figure who most diametrically opposed their parents beliefs. You will find very few satanists who did not grow up in a religious house hold.
Slashdot Mirror
On the flip side, I had an English teacher in high school that went to Catholic schools and had never heard of evolution until she went to college. She said that she was completely caught off guard.
On the other flip side, I went to catholic school (primary, secondary, highschool) and I didn't hear about micro/macro evolution until I started posting on slashdot 3 years ago. I also took 2.5 years of genertics without ever hearing about the macro.micro evolution.
Evolution, women becoming ordained and preists getting married are three entirely different subjects.
Evolution is scientific.
Women being ordained is theological. (By the way, can you find any instance of a judaic priest? rabbi!=priest)
Preists getting married is a thousand year old rule (not doctrine or theological in anyway) that was instituted by Pope Gregory VII so that priests would have more time to carry out theological work instead of having to take care of a family.
Also to stop preists from willing away church land to their children/wives/mitresses.
However, the U.S. figures are here. It's difficult to state that these figures are anything more than a reasonable approximation, but they do show that other churches combined outnumber the Catholic church in the U.S. It's quite likely that the spread is greater than those numbers would have you believe, as it doesn't include a large number of community churches that have no denominational affiliation.
Only in the US, in Canada the catholics out number the protestants and in a world wide context the protestants are a 1/4 of all of christianity. This stems from many early American settlers being Puritans and other protestants.
1. The Big Bang cannot be true as it contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Actualyl no, the first law of thermo dynamics means energy is conserved. The big bang was a the sudden expansion of a signle point of energy into a larger poitn of energy. Energy was conserved.
2. Evolution cannot be true as it contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Again no, it states that things generally proceed towards states of higher entropy if no other force acts upon it. If it is more favorable to have less entropy for some other reason then so long as this reason can counter act the natural tendancy to entropy then it is ok.
My opinion on the universe:
1. The universe started as a complex and orderly living entity, which, over time, began to expand. As it aged, it began to expand, and the life began to DEVOLVE until it reached our current state, humans. You can even witness this devolving process. Think. 10 or so years ago, we didn't have so many hurricanes, earthquakes, or other devastating natural disasters. People are becoming stupider by the day.
You are indeed evidence of this progression towards ignorance. As for the weather, it isnt' a sign of the appocalypse, it's a sign of global warming. If you cohere to your apparent political leaning you deny that there is global wamrign as well.
2. As for where the entire mass of atoms came from, either there is a God(which is possible), or the universe has always existed, and there in some incomprehensible way, time started a billion years back, and the universe came into existence with time. And remember this. There might be something larger than a universe...
String theory may be correct and this universe is simply a thin slice out of the total dimensional space of the over all universe. There is a God, I beleive so. However his design was through evolution and not through mysterious proccesses that no one has any idea of. Evolution doesn't falsify that there is a god but to interject that some designs need a god to make them is stupid. Science is science, Religion is religion. Don't have one interfere with the other.
If the goal is to reduce polution on the planet, it should be based on land area. We are talking about a treaty between *countries* and not individuals. A nation of one million people with the land mass of America, under Kyoto, *should* be allowed to pollute just as much as nation with the same land mass and one billion people. Perhaps it'll encourage the country with one billion people to consider sustainable growth....I guess that nation has....
America pollute in total more then any other country. Almost as much as any other 2.
As China is one of the biggest polluters and is not bound by the Kyoto environmental treaty, having them take this step on their own initiative to create cleaner cities is certainly a welcome sight.
The cities are being developed by a British group, and I'm not sure how well that bodes for the final designs. Britain has some of the most "natural urban growth" cities in the Western world. It will be interesting to see how well they will be able to come up with something that is both ecologically friendly and unique and attractive.
Per capita they polluter much less then your average American... even your average european. So you condescending attitude is assinine. Europe and America used slave labour and virtually slave labour to industrialize as well as putting out massive pollution. China is trying to industrialize and modernize without the same harships and human suffering. There is significant amount of pollution in China but wiht 1.3 billlion people it's very hard not to. India is much worse, and per capita Canada is one of the worst with America coming in second.
This seems about as ethical as a vegetarian who raises livestock to sell to a slaughterhouse.
But, the money's good!
There are many many reasons to be a vegetarian. Objecting to killing something to get meat is only one, and problbly the dumbest and weakest one.
Do you know why China signed it? China is exempt from its requirements, being a "developing nation".
Sheesh.
China By-Passed their exemption.
A grenade is ussually a bite of something like cordite wrapped with a etched wire in a casing or the casing itself is etched. When the cordite explodes the shrapnel is what kills you. In a suicide bombing set up, there ussually is a lot more explosive and they don't depend on nails to do the damage. So yes, you can tell the difference between a bomb impact and a grenade impact.
While I agree sometimes it is better to spend the money and get more efficient, I'm not sure I want my tax dollars wasted on something like this if the govt decides to buy a single expensive solar cell rather than some body armor for some troops on the ground facing suicide bombers...
Body armour may stop shrapnel. Body armour can't stop kenetic force. So it's good versus grenades, small arms, peripheral range of explosions, but piss poor against a bomb attack.
The whole concept of "who has more to lose" is ridiculous anyway. No matter what the US or the UN do, people will find a way to keep the networks connected. Neither the US nor the EU is going to enact criminal penalties for connecting to the "other network", so businesses will just find a way to paper over the gap, just as they do with telephone systems.
True enough, but bandwidth will diminish. Meaning those who want it and know how, can get to it. The rest are fucked. For all intents and purposes this means the networks are seperate.
Software patents would have prevented the web from emerging today if it didn't already exist. It might have still come into existence, but only as an expensive proprietary protocol/service like Compuserve was.
It's a chicken vs Egg thing. The US is currently so litigous because of the internet, so if the Internet did not exsisst and I just invented it and had militry.gov support. It would all happen all over again.
The "half a day of WTFs" was the one on our side, you idiot. I don't kid myself that American content is utterly useless (heck I'm on /.) just like you shouldn't kid yourself that the world outside of the USA is worthless. Of course if I have to base my judgement on the American tourists I meet here...
The thing is, your post I was replying to refered to negotiating power. I am saying that since the other powers have neither anythign to give that the Americans want, nordo they have anythign to take away you basically have to build your own network or play by their rules. So they actually hold all the cards. Meaning you have no position to negotiate. Truly the vast majority of the content ont he Inet that is english, is American or Canadian. So neither of us will miss you if you do decide to take your ball and go home.
What you're describing there is totalitarianism. Ideally communism is where no one is better than anyone and everyone gets the same thing.
As well, communism is completly impractical beause you have 2 billion years of biology working against you.
I don't understand how you could misinterpret my post, but you managed to do it. I repeat: you (you AMERICANS, is that clear now? good) are not in any position to negotiate because you have no negotiating power. Want to "unplug the internet", as you seem to imply you can do? Please do. After about half a day of WTF?!s our root servers will be humming nicely and you can bet we won't be sad because of our tragic loss.
The real problems come later, when half of the world begins using our so-called root servers, while half of the world uses yours... now there are no real "root" servers anymore, are there? This is what is going to happen unless you cooperate. And this is the content of the post you managed to misunderstand.
They wouldn't notice at all. The amount of times an american will look up foreign content is mayber 3-4 times a year. Mostly for japanese porn. The rest of the world is in no posiition to negotiate because the majority of the real content out there is american. You can disconnect yourselves completely and they wouldn't notice at all. That why this won't be a veyr complicated war. One side declare "all right, full digital sanction you sir" and the other side will be "huh? no more europorn. That alright. Local content is less disgusting".
The whole point is: They wouldn't even notice that your gone. But you would notice that 70% of all the porn is gone, all of the media is gone, and P2P is now much much emptier.
If you object to this tactic of artificial shortages, then start the counter-spin about the 360. If you dont' care, then buy the machine. Although I think that there is enough counter-spin already to sink the 360 at launch.
I know a friend who has seen the dev kit, worked on it, and is thoruoughly underwhelmed. He's going to wait till halo 3 comes out to get it instead of picking it up at launch. He's not particularly pro anything (except sega btu they went undeR) he has all 3 current systems, plus nearly every major system before that. He has always bought them at release but will wait this time.
Investigative reporting. That's still where the newspaper outpaces all other forms of news.
The hardcopy might go away, but newspapers have their own websites.
You mean getting second hand information, publishing it as the truth and publishing a very small retraction when your severely wrong?
Even more off topic: Weird, this kinda holds for the first Buddha and the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). Was even Jesus without sin (well at least he was without original sin) -- I'm asking because I don't know. I can see why a cult of personality would form around any sinless man!
Jesus teachings survived, his personal history didn't so we don't know. There is a 30 year gap where we don't know anythign about him. Buddha as well is steeped in the fog of time. Ditto for Zoroaster. We are fairly certain that Mohammad was a conquering warrior philosopher.
Knowing the chinese:
Those responsible have been sacked.
Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.
Those responsible for not sacking everyone who needed to be sacked before this happened have been shot.
Why does it make so many people who cling to their notion of 'science' so angry to acknowledge religious belief has an intellectuatl base, too? Still angry that you had to go to Sunday School? Give it up.
BTW. I'm not angry at all that I went to a catholic high school. I am actually a regular church goer(SIC). I pay my tithes, contribute at my church, volenteer for stuff and go to the occasional bible study. I'm just not a literlist and most christians aren't. But it is literalist/fundementalists that give christianity a bad image.
Seriously, though. Your whole comment was spelled so pitifully in order to mock me for my typo on the word 'intellectual.'
Right?
No, it's because I'm dyslexic and was in a rush to leave for work.
Somehow I get the feeling that Medical Textbooks don't get into detailed dosage information.
'Adding stuff to the curriculum that undermines the basic principles' is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Knowledge and learning comes out of a dialogue, and if nobody challanges scientific ideas they revert to religious dogmas. Remember, 'scientists' 100 years ago believed in many things that hadn't been fully explored, and which were plain untrue.
This whole mess boils down to dogmatists on both sides.
Why does it make so many people who cling to their notion of 'science' so angry to acknowledge religious belief has an intellectuatl base, too? Still angry that you had to go to Sunday School? Give it up.
The problem is the misinformation is very bad because it's not simply wrong, it also contrary to everythign else taught in biology. By your arguement we shoudl introduce a random idea in the printing of each page of every text book. Because this would add change to the ciriculum. It's nto the adherance to dogma that is the problem. Evolution changes all the time. The exact paths are revised. some relationships changes. ect... The basic theory is liek thermo dynamics. True in all cases we know of. Do you see thermo dynamics beign revised often? how about offering alternatives to thermo dynamics. That exactly why people who know this shit often object to peopel who dont' throwing ideas in. Your trying to insist a well supported idea liek themro dynamics is wrong and offering a ludicrious alternative. In such a case not teaching anythign at all woudl be better then teaching mis information.
It should be very obvious why that is related. The comment was about not remembering Bill Clinton "pushing" school prayer. Pronography and prayer don't go together, they're opposites. The Justice Department is part of the Executive branch which takes it's direction and instructions from the President. Of course the poster doesn't remember Bill Clinton "pushing" school prayer, Bill Clinton was "pushing" the opposite. The poster may as well say they don't remember Osama bin Laden ever eating a barbecue pork sandwich or Adolf Hitler throwing bar mitzvahs.
uhh. yeah I stand by my comment. That is a non-sequiter. Pornography? Adolf hilter was 1/4 jew. OSama wasn't a veyr good muslim when he was younger either. But he was also very rich.
"No, then they are not truely Satanists (sounds alot like hedonists, frankly, Wiki isn't correct on eveything you know). What you are refering to is most commonly called atheism (there is no god/satan/blah blah blah) or perhaps agnosticism (i could give a rats ass if there's a god/satan/etc, a more powerful standpoint in my opinion)."
Sigh. "Satanism" as you're definining it is "gothic satanism" - you know, the baby-eating, virgin-sacrificing type of Satanism that doesn't actually exist. Look up Satanism in the Encyclopaedia Britannica if you don't believe me, or any other reputable source; the Wiki was handy, which is why I used it.
"Satanism" as you describe it doesn't exist outside of fiction. I'm not terribly surprised that you have no idea what I'm talking about, but before continuing this conversation, why don't you look it up for yourself?
The stanists I have known have been
1- like the LaVey stanists
2- Goth kids who grew up catholic and needed to rebel
3- Loners who liked beign in a new group
4- Semi-Evil people who truly wanted to be evil but ended up beign somewhat creepy but still not evil.
Hey, I've got an idea! Why don't you call me a dummy twice in order to bolster your argument? That'll work!
As for your other points: here's what Wiki says about Satanism. "Satanism is a religious, semi-religious and/or philosophical movement whose adherents recognize Satan as an archetype, pre-cosmic force, or some aspect of human nature. Although named for Satan, a name associated with evil and temptation, Satanism is more commonly the name given to certain spiritual paths which emphasize the Left-Hand Path, as opposed to the much more common Right-Hand Path. Left-Handers believe in spiritual enrichment through their own work on themselves, and that ultimately they are answerable only to themselves, while Right-Handers believe in spiritual enrichment through the dissolution or submission of the self to (or into) something greater. Many Satanists do not in fact worship a deity called Satan, or necessarily any other deity, nor do they follow a principle of evil. This aspect of their beliefs is very commonly misunderstood."
Most Satanists, in fact, deny the existence of both God and Satan, which is why my original comment (snide as it was) is applicable.
Satanism is a reaction to organized religion. It represent no such things as left hand way. This is merely rationalization from people who do so because few people can view themselves as wanting to be evil. Satanism is a catch all for everybody who had religious parents, felt the need to rebel and chose the figure who most diametrically opposed their parents beliefs. You will find very few satanists who did not grow up in a religious house hold.