The Instigator
Nataliella
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
justin.graves
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Atheists are not Satanic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Nataliella
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,836 times Debate No: 36821
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (30)
Votes (6)

 

Nataliella

Pro

My position for this debate is that Atheists are not Satanic. My opponent's job is to prove that Atheists are actually Satanic.

Definition of Atheism: Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. [1]

Definition of Satan: The rebellious angel who in Christian belief is the adversary of God and lord of evil. [2]

Definition of God: the Being in perfect power, wisdom and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe. [3]

How could someone who does not believe in a supreme being (God) believe in someone who is the adversary of God (Satan), and be able to worship them in the first place?

I'd also like to state as a side note that I am an Atheist, and I do not worship Satan becaude I do not believe there is such thing as Satan.

Sources:
1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
justin.graves

Con

My argument will be fighting on two fronts for now. First off, My opponent seems to be confusing the noun Satanism with the adjective of being satanic, or the verb phrase of "Satan worship." There IS a difference. All references will be from the standard Webster online dictionary.

Satanic "of, relating to, or characteristic of Satan or satanism" Specifically then, having characteristics of satanism and Satan, not performing actual satanism.

The second is the noun of satanism

Satanism " 1:innate wickedness 2: obsession with or affinity for evil; specifically : worship of Satan marked by the travesty of Christian rites'

We can agree, however, that my opponent is talking about Satan worship itself, not being Satanic. So, my opponent's argument can be summed up in this quote from her:

" How could someone who does not believe in a supreme being (God) believe in someone who is the adversary of God (Satan), and be able to worship them in the first place?
I'd also like to state as a side note that I am an Atheist, and I do not worship Satan becaude I do not believe there is such thing as Satan."

Let's get our hands dirty.
Now, my opponent is obviously making the valid point of "How can you worship something you don't believe exists?"
Well, it goes a little like this: Worship need not be direct worship. Example using Christian worship:

Direct: Singing "Amazing Grace"
Indirect: Telling the truth

Direct: Praying
Indirect: Helping someone in need.

Satan Worship example:

Direct: Animal sacrifice
Indirect: Lying, stealing, lusting, blaspheming, and general sinning

Verses:

John 8:44 " 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"

2 Timothy 4:1 "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,"

Now, if all goodness in morality comes from God, then any straying away is the teaching of the devils. Hence, you can worship Satan and his minions without believing in them, just by sinning.

Sources:

New Testament Bible ESV

Webster Dictionary
Debate Round No. 1
Nataliella

Pro

I thank my opponent for joining this debate.

Firstly, my opponent's first saying about Satanic vs. Worshipping Satan is pointless because people know what the title means by my last closing argument, which even my opponent concedes to.

Secondly, one cannot use a bible to declare what is worship and what is not. This is because not everyone believes in the bible. One must use factual sources, not religious sources. Therefore, I use a dictionary to define worship.

worship: a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
b. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed. [4]

By definition, there is no such thing as "indirect worship". Nowhere does the definition mention doing good deeds. It only mentions loving and devoting to a deity, idol or sacred object.

Now, since an atheist does not believe in God, how can they worship any deity, including Satan?

Source:
4. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
justin.graves

Con

I'll be brief here. This is simple.

" Firstly, my opponent's first saying about Satanic vs. Worshipping Satan is pointless because people know what the title means by my last closing argument, which even my opponent concedes to." Right, I was simply clarifying for the sake of the readers.

"Secondly, one cannot use a bible to declare what is worship and what is not. This is because not everyone believes in the bible. One must use factual sources, not religious sources. Therefore, I use a dictionary to define worship." First, you opened the door to the use of the Bible. This whole thing is about whether Atheists worship the Biblical Satan. The Bible is necessary since this was a philosophical and theological question. And as for the "factual sources"... I'm sorry, but nowhere on earth is the dictionary a place for objective truth for the meaning of words. That is why there are yearly editions.

"worship: a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
b. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed. [4]" (Emphasis added.)

It says right there "other religious forms." That is a wide open door for what I was discussing in round 1.

"By definition, there is no such thing as "indirect worship". Nowhere does the definition mention doing good deeds. It only mentions loving and devoting to a deity, idol or sacred object." False based on the clause at the end of b.

"Now, since an atheist does not believe in God, how can they worship any deity, including Satan?"
I extend my original argument, which my opponent did not properly dispute.

Sources extended from last round.

Thank you and goodnight.
Debate Round No. 2
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
The post below should have a question mark, not a period.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
Also justin, if I grant that what you are saying is true, couldn't I also say that everyone has told the truth and is therefore with God and therefore cannot be with Satan.
Posted by truther1111 4 years ago
truther1111
Interesting satanic plot revealed ,Albert pike three world wars , talks about satanic plan to destroy atheists and christians

"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustionWe shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time." 4
Posted by frio937 4 years ago
frio937
@funwiththoughts I agree with everyone you just said to me. Thank you for your views keep up the good work.
Posted by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
@justin.graves: You claimed your stance was valid because of the "other religious forms of worship" mentioned in the definition. Yet, your examples of "indirect worship" were not religious. And even if I grant that, then by doing right, you are worshipping God-so if I believe you, then everyone worships both God and Satan.

@frio937-Well the debate is "satanic", not "satanists". But more importantly, Satanism is actually a serious religion. They don't believe in a deity but they have their own dogma, churches, holy book, etc. like any other religion. Also the Church of the FSM has many members who are theistic, but still value the tenants of pastafarianism.
Posted by frio937 4 years ago
frio937
Why is no one sourcing what satanic worshipers believe. They don't worship any deity is a philosophy in self reflection. The ideals of the satanic bible are the same as the word of the flying spaghetti monster. It was created so atheists could get the same freedoms of those protected by religion. Ask anyone who worships the faith of the flying spaghetti monster and they will claim to be atheists also. Just because a satire comes out a long time ago does not negate the fact that it was just a dogma avoiding the existence of deities.
Posted by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
The logic in this was quite simple.
a) You can worship something in various, sometimes indirect, ways.
b) The Bible states that you can either be with the devil or God, this is shown in what you do.
c) By doing wrong, that is an indirect worship of Satan.
Posted by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
justin.graves, since when is lying, stealing, lusting, or anything else you mentioned a "religious" activity.
Posted by Nataliella 4 years ago
Nataliella
@justin.graves Oh, yeah, I did. Sorry about the misconception.
Posted by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
That is the only reason I accepted this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
Nataliellajustin.gravesTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Pro since Con never showed that atheists are Satanic, instead trying (and failing miserably) to say that "indirect worship exists", which doesn't prove his point. Conduct to Pro due to Con pretty much saying that all Atheists are liars, thieves, blasphemers, etc. (As an atheist myself I found this quite offensive).
Vote Placed by Bruinshockeyfan 4 years ago
Bruinshockeyfan
Nataliellajustin.gravesTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I dont like how con used the bible as a source. That is about the least accuret you can get. Pros arguments where more clear and straightforward.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 4 years ago
Skeptikitten
Nataliellajustin.gravesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never met his burden for how simply not worshiping the Christian god counts as even "indirect" worship which is ridiculous semantics in the first place.
Vote Placed by Mikal 4 years ago
Mikal
Nataliellajustin.gravesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used semantics and failed horribly. He also lost sight of the title, it is not whether they can be, but whether they are. The title is referring to the group as a unit. Basically a case of failed semantics.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Nataliellajustin.gravesTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I was biased against con's case just from the title, yet there is no room for doubt that his argument was superior. First I went from wholly agreeing with the resolution, to a more middle ground (they can be satanic, even if not Satan worshipers). ARGUMENT: In essence you can't have a debate about Christianity, without accepting the bible as a book and a possible source. Attempting to throw the bible out, would also throw out Satan as a name instead of an odd set of behavior (sinning), thus pro's arguments fall flat even if their attempting ruling were upheld. Con successfully used the bible as a source for how someone need not believe in something to follow it (indirect worship), and flipped one of pro's own sources to match his point. SOURCES: I'd leave this tied, if not for con flipping a R2 source to be in his favor.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 4 years ago
Mrparkers
Nataliellajustin.gravesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was never able to answer how exactly atheists are intended to worship something they do not believe in. Con's definition of worship, "other religious forms by which this love is expressed", was not able to correctly answer this question, since by definition, atheists are not religious, and indirect worshiping (as Con called it) is not religious. Honestly though, this debate was completely loaded from the start. Atheism and Satanism are almost complete opposites, there is no way anyone would be able to prove that they're the same thing.