How to Kill God
Description, Justification, Philosophies Satanism index page
By Vexen Crabtree 2000 Jan 06 | Read / Write Comments
How to Kill GodBy Vexen Crabtree 2000 Jan 06 | Read / Write Comments
This page: To provide my point of view on the various methods that can be employed to wean away the monotheistic institutions, their influences and their followers. This essay does not cover the step by step guide to email arguing as can be found in the sister essay, Antitheism guide.
In a world of many religions we find that in the modern world, violence, terrorism and public displays of bigotry are not carried out by the atheists (Buddhists, areligious people, etc), or by the polytheists (Pagans, Wiccans) but by the Christians, the Muslims, the monotheistic brands of religion.
-theisms
Monotheism is a religion with one god. Polytheism is a religion with many. Atheism is a religion with no gods, OR a person who is areligious. For example, a child who is brought up in a secular family. Buddhism is atheist, and so is a Buddhist.
Implicit Atheism is someone who is an atheist because they do not know about theism. A person in a secular world could be an implicit atheist because they don't believe in any gods, and also they don't know about gods in order to believe in them. Likewise an explicit atheist is an atheist who has some experience of religion and has thought about the issues and decided that he believes that no gods exist.
An Implicit Theist is a person, who beyond his own rational control, is a member of a religion. For example many Islamic countries are exclusively made up of implicit theists because through their society and laws there is no chance to be anything other than Muslim.
An agnostic is a person who believes that even if there are gods, we cannot prove they exist. Gaia (Earth consciousness) is one such entity that we cannot observe, and cannot observe us. Agnostics often assign themselves to a religion, some are deists, some call themselves atheists. Some implicit atheists can become agnostics by considering concepts such as gaia, or by reflection.
If you argue with a theist long enough and well enough they may become agnostics, disillusioned with revelation yet still hold the belief that something divine exists.
Satanisms (I like abusing the English language)
Traditional Satanists, or Devil Worshippers, are those who worship an evil god such as the Egyptian god Set. It is these sects that most people think Satanism is about. When I use the term Satanism I refer to the Church of Satan's teachings, which are atheist. Read my other pages to find out more about the Church of Satan. (try ChurchOfSatan.com and www.dpjs.co.uk.
Win, Lose or Draw
Terminology. A win situation is a situation that leads to a reduction in the amount of power that monotheistic movements have. A lose is an increase in the influence of any of the monotheistic religions. A draw is an unknown, where the factors are dependant on the people involved. For example, if a child has one pagan parent and one Muslim, it is a draw, because we cannot tell which religion the child will take up, atheism, monotheism or polytheism. If this situation was in a Muslim country, it would be a loss, because the child is most likely to become a Muslim, poor thing.
Parents
"What religion are you" asked a friend at school, many years ago. I didn't know, and that particular question can become popular every now and then as children learn to act socially.
So I asked my parents, and they said that they were both atheists, but it was up to me to choose. I immediately had a dilemma because I recognized "atheist" as meaning that I didn't have a religion - and for a child a null answer can be seen as a cop-out answer. So I looked around my life, but found that I could not find a religion that I knew anything about that I could call myself. So I stuck to atheist.
For a period of time children always assume the religion of their parents. Some liberal (typically European) religious parents will bring their children up as atheist and not bother them with the religion that they loosely associate themselves with.
This initial impression on children can be very long lasting, and it is exclusionary. Once a child learns what religion they are, it is unlikely that they will switch. I.e., Christian parents do not find themselves faced with a child who chooses to be Islam (unless they all live in an Islam (for example) country, in which case Peer pressure can be overriding).
The trend amongst liberal religious people to bring their children as atheists is a very strong point that we can lever upon. The trend is set for an increasingly atheist society, in a truly enlightened world. A liberal religious person, other than being far more acceptable and accepting, is likely a win situation for us.
Peer pressure
More common sense psychology. A person who is brought up by (for example) Catholic parents, in a Catholic area, and attends (perhaps) a Catholic school will be a Catholic. They don't necessarily have to believe, but nonetheless they will behave as and call themselves a Catholic. If two parents of one religion live a country where the default schooled religion is something else, peer pressure may cause the child to submit to peer pressure and assume the religion that hir friends have rather than that of hir parents.
Peer pressure works against us when religious people reach a certain critical mass, i.e., when their influence causes the religion in question to be seen as the norm rather than an oddity. When we bring children up to associate (for example) long hair with girls, then it becomes normal for girls to have long hair. Same with religion.
Rebellion
Not all people allow themselves to succumb to the above factors for ever. People from a strongly religious background will rebel if they live in an atheist country, their family (children) will become atheists. This is peer pressure forcing a rebellion against the older, "traditional" methods of the family in favour of local, social influences. It is a win if we can isolate religious parental units in a country where their religion has little influence.
A common instability comes when there is a strong presence of two religions in the same area, for example the Protestant and Catholic influence in N.Ireland. Here the rebellion instinct can work against us. As a person gets older the rebellion instinct can cause them to switch from one group to the other, without considering atheism.
After this switch (s)he will often be more strongly affiliated with their new religion than they were with their parental default. The strength of this comes from the fact that after the rebellion they feel that they are standing on their own ground rather than that of their parents or community.
Fundamentalism
I am not going to try and state what causes people to become quite so dedicated as to reject logic in favour of this particular type of imbalance. Fervent patriotism, religious or revolutionary enthusiasm often serves as a refuge from a guilty conscience. Fundamentalists require an approach all of their own, as we shall see.
Logic, Liberals
Liberals will not take the Bible and their holy texts literally and will already have some scepticism as to their own religion. Implicit theists often inhabit this field, where logic and guidance can convert them into even less religious forms. Theology, Philosophy and logical arguments can be used, and this is type of arguing most often seen in usenet, on chat shows and in books.
The advantages are that is prevents the front that prevents agnostics and deists from becoming pests and it also gives the explicit atheist and anti theist his main source of confidence and power. The disadvantages are that these arguments often fail to psychologically convince the theist that their religion is a bad thing.
Using these arguments on an adversarial theist (one that likes conflict) can push them into a fundamentalist mindset where they become hardened against logical argument altogether, which is a lose situation.
Testing the waters with a few logic arguments is the fail safe way to determine what type of person you are arguing against is. If they are stupid, too hardened or bigoted then often you will have to pace yourself rather than waste logical arguments on them.
Theology
Even if you can win over a theist to your side with psychological confidence tricks you will not be able to strike the winning blow unless you can show them how their religion is unsound and cannot be true. Theology, metaphysics and philosophy (phenomenonology, existentialism, subjectivism) are the logical tools that we can use to ridicule, expose and undermine typical religious trains of thought.
Psychology
You cannot turn a theist into an atheist with purely logical arguments unless they were already a liberal, or they were an implicit theist and hadn't considered options before. It is highly likely that a theist has already encountered argumentative atheists before. But never let that assume that they have had a good argument. It is highly likely that they have not argued with someone who actually knows what they are talking about, such as you or me.
If you present yourself, calmly, rationally, peacefully, in a friendly manner, then you can make a large amount of ground without even trying. Closely knit religious social groups often become deluded as to what atheists are like, for example in some parts of the Bible belt, or in some entire countries, atheists can be rare. (Although thankfully atheists make up about 50% of the worlds population).
There are too many dumb atheists who argue are arrogant and annoying and these only serve to solidify the theists opinion that they are in the moral high ground and silently strengthen their commitment to their current position.
Fundamentalists have to be taken carefully, and slowly, and the best line of attack is to come over as friendly and acceptably as you can. In effect you have to get much deeper into them, you have to make a bigger (and unobtrusive) impression on them. They are very willing to jump on to a defensive rant, or to block you out, if you show signs of arguing offensively ("like all the others"). They love to find ways in which they can prove they are better than you in order to "prove" that their theology is equally untouchable.
Bad psychology will prevent your arguments from making an impact, and can turn a winning argument into a lose. Good psychology will turn a draw into a win and give you a good reputation as an arguer rather a reputation for being argumentative. You cannot learn "good psychology" by reading psychology books, you can only learn it through practice. First of all, argue with your friends. Tell them you are going to "practicing refuting some theology on them." and then talk them through your own argument. The best way to see your own errors is to allow your own friends to critisize you, and to verbalize your own arguments.
Develop your look and your appearance. Yes, we are using every trick in the book here! Be smart, dress powerfully (no ties for crying out loud!). Dress in black, keep good eye contact, don't look at your feet as you talk. Smile! Smile when they make a good point! Smile when they say something clever! Reward them for any intelligent comments! When they are wrong say, "Are you sure?". Even if you cannot prove something you can state, "Are you sure that's true?" and you allow them to think about the possibility that it isn't.
If they make sweeping statements, "Theists are happier than atheists in general" then stop them right away! Do not let such assumptions go untested. State, "What? Actually, I think it's the other way round. Atheists are happier on average.". The chances are neither of you have the facts to defend or refute such general commentary. So don't let them get away with it! As long as you come across intelligently and confidently they will be forced to give you some credence for anything you say, even if it's vague.
"I don't think that's true - have you looked into it much?" - this statement is so useful! It is a win statement, it puts them on the defensive and forces them to admit that they don't know as much as they previously made out, and without knowing anything about the subject yourself you can imply that they may be wrong. If they do such things to you you can ignore them, or if they persist make it known that you will not put up with such vague comments with a comment such as, "And what do you know that I don't?" or, "Oh, do you study that then?" - or any retort that once again questions how much they actually know on the subject,
Intelligence
We all know that some people never learn. Sometimes you have to judge someone and simply give up. You can make a good impression, but sometimes they are too stupid to ever get out of the doctrines implanted in their skulls whilst they were young. There is an entire class of people that once they are indoctrinated into a sect will never see past it. Fundamentalists of this ilk are simply a waste of time.
There is no point in arguing with a stupid moron, even if he is a Christian or monotheist, if they are simply going to ignore logical argument. In these lose situations the idea is to be quick, efficient and not to get bogged down in pointless discussions. Simply make some general points, show them that you are a moral, rational, safe person and plant some seeds of doubt. "There are many people who assume the Necronomicon to be real. Likewise how does anyone know that the text they are reading is not a fraud or factual at all?" - Do not let them argue this point, otherwise they will defensively assume they are right, simply state that fact and run before you accidentally come across as someone to argue against. Make the statement remain uncontested, separate from yourself, and let them have to think about it without your help. Placing these seeds of doubts can at least result in a draw.
Seeds of doubt can gradually wear away the psychological hold that a religion has over them. It won't work from one day to the next, but the person carries these doubts through their life, and they accumulate.
Image
Everyone looks down on godhatesfags.com. Everyone knows that it is a hate site, and it serves a as a good bad example of theistic thought. There are many violent people who seek refuge from their own guilt and self oppression in religious zealotry. The ranting fundamentalist (flat earth society...) is often not worth the effort (see the chapter 'intelligence' above). What's more these people work in our favour by showing the world what religion leads to.
If we argued with these people we also would be caught in their bad light. For example, if Humanists forced material down peoples necks like the major Churches do then Humanism would be seen in the same light ("they're all the same").
One of the reasons I became a Satanist was to aid in the giving of religion a bad name (Satanism is a ludicrous example of a bad religion to many).
Entrenchment
Once a critical mass has built up a religion becomes entrenched, it becomes the default for the locality of the society in which it festers. The longer it remains there the harder it is to remove. The Church is, for example, finding it hard to make ground in China and Hong Kong because those areas have not been subjected to it before, but due to the recognition of the symbol of the Christian Cross people often take it for granted that the Church represents a noble cause. Entrenchment is the acceptance of something because it is recognizable or familiar.
Decay
With entrenchment comes decay. What was once new becomes standard, and what's standard becomes disinteresting. This is our advantage, that disinterest and mundanity allows liberalism to creep in. Some countries have state-enforced laws and traditions however that overcome this by assuming everyday roles, such as the periodical prayer sessions in Saudi Arabia during which it is illegal to do anything else! Cases like this need external help or can continue in a stalemate for a long time.
Challenge the default
I am surprised at the amount of religious people I encounter at this university who have never had their faith challenged. There is a percent of Christians who go their entire lives without realizing that the Bible was not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and subsequent writers, but pseudopigraphically under their names from a much later date - the first one being wrote more than 40 years after Yeshua/Jesus died. (See my text on The Bible.)
'Challenge the default' means to stop "believers" before they start. Do not let them assume the religion of their parents just because they never think about the issues. Let them know, kindly, that they have a choice and flood them with a bit of philosophy and theology to back up your scepticism. Sometimes this is enough to inspire their rebellious spark and allow them to transfer to atheism.
There is no excuse for us letting implicit theists get beyond school, college or university without thinking about their faith. This source of recruits is very easily stopped, and with very little effort or stress on behalf of yourself and the ex-theist involved.
Some people will not be so easy, or logical, and some people we reach too late in the solidification process of their beliefs. We should not always attack their beliefs as place seeds of doubt. If we attack them we run the risk of making them hard against the atheists arguments, or making them begin that slippery slope into thinking that all people who do not share their beliefs are arrogant or aggressive.
Show them the way
Inform people of the immorality of revealed religion. Let people know that you think telling children that there inherently sinful and must repent is a bad thing. Put the bias on the side of atheist. Stating "It's more efficient to give to charity in a charity shop rather than in a church" is a good blanket statement.
Ask a theist, "You said that wars are political in nature and not religious ... but when is the last time you heard of an atheist run into a Church with a bomb on their back? When is the last time a plane was hijacked and an atheist demanded the release of a religious leader or zealot? Sure, atheists do comparable things, but so do theists. It's just that there is an entirely different mode of violence that emerges when religion reaches a critical mass."
Challenge the non-freethinkers, RESIST!
"We're going to get married in the Methodist Church down the road from your Dad's house."
"Oh,", says the freethinker, "I didn't know you were religious."
"We're not, but you know, we've got to get married somewhere!"
"I know a couple who had their marriage in an old collapsed building in the middle of a field, with the ceremonies lit by firelight and candles. That was so cool. Why don't you do something special?"
Such an innocently placed remark can change the course of history. Whenever a person assumes they need to take part in a religious ceremony, challenge it. In the UK there are companies that do atheist baptisms, called a "Naming Service" where the parents and godparents officially declare the babies name and make vows as to how they are going to bring it up. Make sure people know that they are in danger of committing themselves to a boring and "uncool" thing, and present a alternative.
People can get married through a registrar without any need for religious intervention, and on top of that they can celebrate it in any style they wish.
If your family visits church of any occasion, resist. You can always make the excuse, "Church is cold and archaic. It makes me nervous. I'd rather stay at home. I'd rather read a book. You can go, but I'm not!"
Practice and develop your skills
Join Christian mailing lists and make sure that they have experienced intelligent opposition - make them doubt. Ignore arguing with the fundamentalists once they stop being logical, and stick to what we do best: Logic, philosophy and common sense. If you write something particularly good then consider posting it to usenet, alt.religion.something (wherever is appropriate).
Usenet and email arguments are the best place you can practice, hone and perfect your arguing techniques. You will learn to be precise, to think quick and to read around the subject area because people with all sorts of specialities will be arguing with you. You will learn how to construct arguments in good order, etc.
Signing guestbooks, finding email addresses of Christian homepages and such is a good place to find random people to argue against. And don't forget most of them have not been challenged in a serious way, so you will make good ground.
When you cannot think how to phrase a sentence what is the best course of action? Often, you will ask a friend. And: Most the time as you explain the problem to them you will realize what the answer is. Likewise with arguments, friend a friend, tell them that you have a line of arguing that you are thinking about. You can do this to your theist friends just as much as to your atheist friends or even your parents.
As you argue, in a friendly way, the friend will point out to you, "You can't say that!" when you make an error, or "What does that mean?" when you cover something that needs expanding on. If you cannot explain your arguments to your own friends, you cannot hope to convince an opponent!
Develop a friendship in which you frequently explain all your arguments. Write them down in essays and on web pages and show them to your friends. They will act as supporters, friendly advisers and proof readers all in one go.
A simple homepage
Explain to the world with simple step by step arguments, some of the reasons that you are explicitly atheist. For example, "I want to be able to judge situations by being considerate, not by using a book and dogma to form my opinions", or "I'm a good person and don't feel the need to be religious just to prove it".
If you find yourself rewriting the same phrases or arguments in usenet then formulate that argument onto a webpage so that you can cut and paste it into usenet, and so that you can supply a URL in your signature at the end of every post. This also allows people to email you about things, giving you more opportunity to ease them away from theism.
Be there for people
Education, determination and presence are the Satanists sword and shield.
It does not matter if we guise ourselves as humanists, realists or atheists: These things share some common aims with Satanism and it is from all angles that we have opportunity to influence and educate those who would otherwise turn to theistic worship if we let the godly religionist's doctrine of guilt enforcement dominate. There are plenty of people who are too dumb to understand the theological battle which we fight - these people could fall on either side of the fence, but it is our intention to ensure that implicit atheism will win over those who do not understand. Explicitly atheistic, the Satanist has Hell's strength of truth.
Tax the Churches
The single biggest step, possibly unlikely, is to tax the Church on all its income, property and land and watch it instantly fold up to a fraction of its size. Charity is a good cause, but Church is not the way to do it. Support taxing of churches, and voice it as a valid course of action, as most people will not have considered it.
Politics
Make people know about the issues! Most people would not consider that taxing churches is a good idea, but let them know how much land the Church actually owns! All of that income is being denied to our health services, to our charities and to our government. Does the Church fund medical research? The Church does run some charitable expeditions, but their overheads are large and their institutions inefficient. There are plenty of more specific and streamlined charities that we should give to rather than feeding the monolithic church!
Here is a short text, where a fellow atheist felt that religious organisations didn't have an effect on him:
> Despite all this, Overall I feel mainstream Christianity, Judaism,
When (for the second time) the UK Government tried to pass equality rights for sexuality issues, which organisations do you think Baroness Young rallied to block the bill?
As long as the Christian right are influencing the legal system in an active way, I will oppose the Christian right with whatever methods are appropriate - individuals are no problem, it's the organisations and institutions that I'm after. If attacking these institutions requires that I take away their psychological hold on the people who follow them , then so be it. If I take down, hide
or stop Christian literature from being distributed, then they will have less support and people will
not be compelled to help them continue their ridiculous campaigns.
> and Islam generally a completely different worldview and need not
> be bothered with until it imposes directly on our personal freedom.
In the case of sexual equality and marriage it appears that the only opponents are Christians! (in the UK, anyway) This is not a suitable place to debate whether it is moral that such people should dictate who can and cannot marry, but so many people seem to accept the restrictions without wandering about the issues.
Stonewall (a gay rights political body active in the UK) and other bodies already exist, and they can always do with editors, staff and skills that often a Satanist will possess (such as the ability to think quickly, critically and deliver strong statements).
Strategic support
Strategic support for religious groups can be very useful. Support small groups such as Pantheism, Wicca, Paganism, Odinism, groups who feel that they have been oppressed and (sometimes) slaughtered by Christianity or other large organized religious groups. Support groups that might bear a grudge or feel wronged by the dominant religious structures.
The idea is to fragment the larger groups by presenting as many alternatives as possible to the people. Give your support to anything that might take a few members from a larger group, This is anarchy; the larger groups (nor the public) cannot attack all these small groups; and if they do so they become disliked by increasing numbers of people.
Find groups who can support in your local area, you can get a name as someone accepting, understanding and helpful to these groups, and they will allow you to help them. Talk to them and get a feel for the best ways they could encroach on the historical or present ground of the larger churches. Just don't get personally involved, and don't pledge allegiance to these groups! You want them to be indebted to you without the rest of the world thinking you're a member of the group yourself.
Destroying churches & material damage to religious property, etc
The best attack for us does not lie in illegal assaults, because they will inhibit and condemn us, when we are in the right. Have a brain! Think long term. You do not want the sympathy vote going to Churches and religions, when the oppressed and the areligious need that sympathy and understanding more.
Restraint! If there is a group of atheists they don't need to know about religion - implicit atheism is a good thing - and we do not need to expose them to religious thought.
The Chinese government is officially atheist. Chinese people are generally happy to live atheist lives, doing what they do. Religion is not a big issue. But. When the Chinese government attacked a religious movement (I've forgotten its name) it lost - it may have imprisoned the cults leaders but it had the side affect of promoting religious thoughts amongst all China's populace.
When you attack, you run the risk of inspiring the rebellious flame in people against you, even amongst people who were not previously in that field of battle. If you go into a society of atheists and teach them to be anti theistic, or argue anti theism at them then a portion of them will rebel and develop theistic aspirations of their own.
Keep your arguments squarely against the theists themselves, don't barrage a society with theology unless they are already religious. Continually talking about a subject promotes it, no matter what you are saying about it. If we broadcasted a news report saying how bad, uncouth and dangerous a certain type of music is then it is obvious that the bands in that genre of music will experience a rise in sales as people become aware of them. Same for religion. Don't let it fester in the minds of those who need not have came into contact with it.
Don't make a public display of it. Do not make people think you are being a bastard, so do it casually as if it is irrelevant, normal and boring. Do not tear up a Christian leaflet, spit on it and say "Fucking Christians" in front of anyone. You may inspire them to feel sorry for Christians and possibly cause them to challenge you.
Casually removing Christian literature allows a more stable and consistent atheist environment. If every religious group campaigned and promoted itself then the atmosphere becomes more excited, more dangerous, and you yourself will becomes "just another arguing religious person". Diffuse and make your life easier by weaning away such poster or leaflet campaigns.
As for campaigning for atheist - don't bother. Atheism is humankinds natural state, it is better to silently attack theism rather than risk creating an issue amongst people who were not involved in the first place. The best place to place your carefully drafted essay on "Why religious "enforced" morality is immoral" is not on a canteen table, but place it on a chair in the room where the Christian or Muslim society will have a meeting an hour before they arrive.
Image Campaigns
These are subtly different to argumentative campaigns. The Churches of the world are suffering from image problems. Priests are seen as sexually frustrated, Catholic schools are seen as archaic, militaristic academies rather than educational establishments. It does no harm to make politically incorrect jokes about these stereotypes as long as you do it in good spirit. Applying peer pressure in this way does not run the risks discussed above of promoting religion as it does not cover anything factual about religion, and as long as you do it in a typical manner you won't be viewed as attacking the Church.
How many jokes about Michael Jacksons sexuality are there? Although you can make such a joke without been viewed as anti-Jackson or homophobic, it still has the effect of giving him a bad reputation without promoting his music. (Personally I like M.Jackson, so don't start reading between the lines). Jokes at the Churches expense can give them a bad image, reduce attendance in a fairly safe way, although it is a limited influence.
Honesty & Compliments
Do not try to lie your way through arguments, you should be able to back out of an argument if you do not know enough and you will gain a psychological advantage if every now and then you back down and say, "I don't know enough about that", or "Oh, good point, you're quite clever".
If you compliment someone you will become ten times more clear - people always seek out sources of reward. But don't overdo it, because you'll appear weak and amateur. Compliment them when they make intelligent observations, because it is through these observations that they will eventually save themselves.
Damage
Is it worth vandalizing graveyards, churches, etc? If you are reading this essay then the answer is no. This is something other people do. People have done it for a thousand years and will continue to do so. It is not worth the risk nor the immorality of physical damage to do something that immature teenagers do all the time.
It does do one thing: It weans away the Churches resources. They have to replace books, literature and windows at a very high rate in comparison with other organisations. If you go past a person who is handing out leaflets entitled "Jesus Christ Saves!" then take one and throw it away. What do you lose? If you are feeling brave, ask him if you can distribute some "in the town center", or "back in my home town", and throw them away. It is not a particularly moral or effective tactic, but you lose neither time nor expend effort so it is a winning tactic.
Immoral?
Is it immoral to do such things as just discussed?
Is it more moral to leave this hanging on the computer center noticeboard than is it more moral to remove them? It contains text stating that homosexuality is a sin, that sorcery is a sin, that all people are sinful, it is simply a poster designed to make people submit, feel oppressed and promotes hate crime.
Monotheism is weak in that it is not based on truth, and doubly weak that it relies on outdated psychological guilt complexes to extend its ranks.
Most of the points discussed above are individually fairly slow strategies. But when persistent these have the effect of denying monotheistic religious cults of their followers, which is the most potent thing that we can do.
Killing a god requires taking away its support base, as all good Terry Pratchet readers know! It is about time that god retook his position next to gaia as interesting concepts rather than gods current position as a habitually worshipped fear-hate-guilt object.
Self indulgence
This section is particularly aimed at the Satanists amongst us. It is gratifying to be able to change someone's opinion, or to defeat them in an argument. Arguing on usenet, when done properly, is not a waste of time but a strong source of confidence for all arguing. You will become familiar with your own weaknesses and develop textual arguing skills.
Arguing with street preachers, promoting occult religions and having a knowledge of theology will aid you, along with your reputation and image, in gaining an air of authority when you speak to others. Usenet is a good place to learn to use speciality words easily and quickly. And the argumentative atmosphere makes it a much more challenging and stimulating place than other methods of learning that are devoid of such in-your-face competition.
LaVey, Anton [Who Is?]
"The Satanic Bible". 1969, Avon Books Inc, New York, USA.