The Instigator
Scyrone
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Yrael
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Codified Theistic and Spiritual Satanism does not exist.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,739 times Debate No: 1044
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (10)

 

Scyrone

Pro

The Church of Satan was started by Anton Szandor LaVey in 1966. Then, with all his combined writings of the time, he wrote the Satanic Bible, codifying Satanism into an Atheist "unreligion", not a group of devil worshippers/blood drinkers. Before then, nobody had the guts to stand up to the Christian movement as much as he did. Nobody stood up to the Christian, Islam, and Jewish Fundamentalists.

Soon enough, there were many other groups who were either:

A) Former CoS members whom had left the CoS to create there own so-called "Satanic" group

B) People who had seen LaVey set a new standard to freedom of speech, and decided to do the same, but in a different group

or C) Misinterpreted LaVey as a devil worshipper and started worshipping Satan

This debate will mainly focus on option C. Devil Worshippers (called usually Theistic or Spiritual Satanists by the masses who do not know what true Satanism is all about), polytheistic Set/Loki/Satan/Lucifer worshippers, and other opposite-God worshipping groups came into existence (through superstition and belief that LaVey was a devil worshipper). Although these people claim to be groups of men and women that worship Satan, they have no rules, laws, Bible, or even leader for that matter.

That is why I want to settle this once and for all. Codified Theistic and Spiritual Satanism does not exist.

For the record, I am what you would call a LaVeyan Satanist (a true Satanist).
Yrael

Con

This should be interesting.

Your point is simply put "Codified Theistic and Spiritual Satanism does not exist"

So first and foremost let us examine that statement in itself. (Exist: To be) What do you mean they don't exist? People believe in them don't they? So as a thought? As a principle? As a "Codified" idea, yeah they both totally exist otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate.

But for fun let's keep examining this idea.

Let's examine for starters "Codified Theistic Satanism" by putting the word code in there I am assuming that somewhere they have a code for their particular theistic satanism even if only in their mind. You say that these people have "no rules, laws or bibles". Well, you have conceded they have rules and laws by saying they are codified. Furthermore it is a little difficult to have a religion without any rules or laws, unless your particular religion follows the idea that laws/rules shouldn't exist (in which case you still have that law/rule). On the bibles subject I ask you what does that matter?

Do you somehow need a bible to have a religion? Is that a particular religious rule I have missed? Can you show it to me somewhere? Furthermore let us notice that Jesus didn't have a bible..... in fact his bible was not created for hundreds of years afterwards. Was his religion fake because of this? Do religions only come into existence when a bible is made?

Lets go farther. Religions are ideas are they not? Some might even say they are good ideas. Must every idea be written down to be good or valid? Were my thoughts on this debate somehow non-valid before I had written them down? Did my thoughts on this debate not exist until I had written them? Might as well throw Jesus and Socrates right out the window, guess those idiots should have written something down (note: blatant sarcasm)!

Hey hey, why don't we go even farther! New religions come into existence all the time right? There was Judaism, and then came Islam, and then Christianity. We had what is now referred to as the Greek and Roman mythologies sometime before that. The Norse thrown in there somewhere. Along with the whole King Arthur era and its particular gods. So let me ask you this, were those religions somehow non-valid before they came along? Or even better yet, should religions not exist because they are simply derived from another religion?

Were not many of the ideas in Christianity taken from Judaism and Islam? Should it not exist? Isn't your own religion influenced by Ayn Rand and Nietzsche? Just because Codified Theistic and Spiritual Satanism takes ideas from your religion does that somehow make it non-existent? Back to your fun religion. It is totally based off of every other religion out there, it even proclaims that every anti-god out their happen to be perfect manifestations of the attributes and qualities of Satan. Not to mention LaVey's own thoughts as you say were based somewhat on the idea of standing up to "Christian, Islam, and Jewish Fundamentalists". And lastly on this thought, the ninth satanic statement blatantly says "Satan has been the best friend the (Christian) Church has ever had, as it has kept it in business all these years."

And then, on a totally different note.... Can you prove to me that not one of these groups.... not one of these Codified theists and spiritual satanic groups does not have a bible? Or at the very least a text? I would very highly doubt that not one single person out of these presumably thousands has not written at least a line on their own personal thoughts about their religion. Even if it was in their diary or for a class. In fact, if you would really like to contest this point I will draft up a list of commandments for the "Codified Theistic and Spiritual Satanists" as of my knowledge. It will be sweet.

NEXT: You are presuming that your particular "true satanism" preceded every other branch of satanism out there. Can you prove this to me? I must admit as a boy I had thoughts of making a religion based on Satan just to piss people off (this was after I decided that Christianity itself was a bad idea of course). Am I somehow alone in this thought? Can you tell me for sure that no one before 1966 thought of a religion based on Satan? I personally believe your religion is attempting to steal the credit for the title "Satanism" when in all reality it was invented long before LaVey's time.

So finally, on this line, "and other opposite-God worshipping groups came into existence (through superstition and belief that LaVey was a devil worshipper)".
Once again I am standing by the idea that forms of Satanism have existed for a long long time even if not as your personal "true satanism". Your LaVey did not coin the word Satan.

So for a brief summary:

CODIFIED THEISTIC AND SPIRITUAL SATANISM DOES EXIST

1. It is really really difficult to debate about an idea that does not exist.
2. Any religion requires a code, even if held by a few, to function. You concede to me that some of them are codified. Therefor they do have rules and laws.
3. No religion requires a written text or bible to exist. Jesus did not write his thoughts down, nor did he have a bible. Many great people taught other from their own mind instead of from writings. Furthermore, can you show me the Greek, Roman, or Buddhist bible?
4. Even if we ignore point 3, can you prove to me that not one of these Codified Theistic and Spiritual Satanists has not written anything down?
5.
"What is 'nothing'? My personal definition is "the absence of an object or person that is not present on/around/below/etc. an object, person, or other physical matter."

The argument here is not 'Nothing exists? Everything is existing right now!' My argument is that the idea and "matter" of 'nothing' can exist. The absence of something can exist. Prove me wrong."

Recall this? It is a debate you started on the 18th of Dec. So sure, let us go with that point. 'Nothing can exist' Therefor any religion does exist even if someone has not thought of it yet. Did the fact that no one had thought of your religion before 1966 make it invaluable, fake, or non-existant. No. I am simply denoting something that is not there. That at the time was not there, yet it still existed.

Finally, on your religion as a whole. Aside from my attack on it attempting to steal credit for the word satan. I think your religion is rather flawed. It bases itself off of Ayn Rand and Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophies. Which to some extent are contradictory. Especially when the main theme of your religion is believing in yourself as a god, or each human as a god. A.k.a Nietzsche's Ubermensch. However your religion twists Nietzsche's Ubermensch to mean one should follow, as Ayn Rand calls it, "the virtue of selfish". Where the Ubermensch was not this at all, Nietzsche believed that the highest virtue was that of the gift giving virtue. By which he meant that one should always strive to better themselves in order to give back to others and help them rise above, to become more like Ubermensch. Nietzsche hardcore liked your idea of breaking the societal bonds, but he also believed that others should be helped to break away also, for the betterment of society. Ayn Rand on the other hand.... believes that everyone does everything for themselves. Do you honestly believe that about people like Gandhi? Do you honestly believe that when someone asks you the arbitrary "where is the bathroom" you answer because it makes you feel good? No, you answer simply because you can.

Also would you not agree with me that everything is relative? Doesn't your religion create stupid people, lest it couldn't survive.

In a realist since how do you define someone who falls under your number one sin? Stupidity?

And who in their right mind names their religion after the most popular religion's devil? Way to discredit your ideas.
Debate Round No. 1
Scyrone

Pro

"Well, you have conceded they have rules and laws by saying they are codified"

No, I said it does NOT exist. I am basically saying Theistic and Spiritual Satanists that have laws and rules do not exist. There is no set standard for what they can be Satan wise.

"As a "Codified" idea, yeah they both totally exist otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate."

But I'm saying that a codified Theistic Satanist DOES NOT exist. There has NOT been a codified ideal yet, although some people believe there to be so.

"On the bibles subject I ask you what does that matter?"

What I meant by Bible is a book that leads the religion (or maybe even a multiple of codified scripts). In any case it would be a Bible just set for a different religion with a different name.

"Furthermore it is a little difficult to have a religion without any rules or laws"

Exactly, which is why a codified Theistic Satanist cannot believe in anything because there is no codified version.

"Some might even say they are good ideas. Must every idea be written down to be good or valid?"

No, they do not have to be. But to be codified, yes. Which is why they do not have any Bibles, Spiritual books, and written guidance anywhere.

"Were my thoughts on this debate somehow non-valid before I had written them down?"

No, they just were not set in stone. They were not implemented as of yet.

Ideas are not valid until they are practiced by either a many group of people who believe in that idea, or it is written down for a mass group of followers to follow.

"Might as well throw Jesus and Socrates right out the window, guess those idiots should have written something down (note: blatant sarcasm)!"

But then again, someone did write there ideas down. Funny how there ideas were not implemented or given thought until someone wrote them down ;)

"So let me ask you this, were those religions somehow non-valid before they came along?"

This doesn't make sense. It is like saying "Was I here before I was here?"

"should religions not exist because they are simply derived from another religion?"

No, but then again, there is no ounce of evidence that Theistic Satanism exists because in this day in age, people refer to books to be credible (anything can be written on the net). By seeing, for example, a Theistic Satanic Bible I would then accept it if I saw that this Bible made an impact somehow on a multiple of people who followed it delightly.

"Were not many of the ideas in Christianity taken from Judaism and Islam? Should it not exist?"

You've gone off your single point:

"Must every idea be written down to be good or valid?" and "my thoughts on this debate somehow non-valid before I had written them down?"

But with my answer:

"No, they do not have to be. But to be codified, yes."

Your argument was useless. You misunderstand what a codified religion is. And I have not seen any proof of you showing that Theistic Satanism or Spiritual Satanism, in a codified form, does exist. You have gone off of random assumptions and complicated misplaced Philosophy.

Influences of religion has nothing to do with the debate. The debate is whether Theistic Satanism exists or not. I do not think it exists. You do. But your logic in the debate was faulty.

"Or at the very least a text? I would very highly doubt that not one single person out of these presumably thousands has not written at least a line on their own personal thoughts about their religion. Even if it was in their diary or for a class. In fact, if you would really like to contest this point I will draft up a list of commandments for the "Codified Theistic and Spiritual Satanists" as of my knowledge. It will be sweet."

Yes, they can write whatever they want. That does not mean they codified it. Many people have written things, but they are all different. They claim to know these "blood drinking" rituals when none of them know where they got it from.

I think you don't know what Codified means. Codified: to reduce laws (rules, regulations, etc.) to a code. Codified: to arrange in a systematic collection.

In order for laws to be implemented, there must be a group of people willing to follow those laws. Many people say they are Theistic Satanists, but they do not show any proof of it existing.

"You are presuming that your particular "true satanism" preceded every other branch of satanism out there."

Because ours is codified. It was set in stone and put into rules. Yes, you thought about it. It was not valid though. LaVey made it valid and therefore made it the first to be codified.

I personally think all your definitions you made yourself. You did not even look them up in a dictionary and with it trailed off into your own mind, completely absent to what you were doing.

"1. It is really really difficult to debate about an idea that does not exist."

Exactly, it does not exist.

‘You concede to me that some of them are codified."

No, I said some off-shoot organizations take a multiple of different ideas, but they do not call themselves Theistic Satanists or Spiritual Satanists. And besides, there are so many out there that they would not be able to codify it because they would all differentiate.

"No religion requires a written text or bible to exist."

Give me an example.

"Jesus did not write his thoughts down, nor did he have a bible." Yes he did, THE Bible. He started the religion and many people followed him.

"Furthermore, can you show me the Greek, Roman, or Buddhist bible?"

Greek or Roman? No, but then again, they don't exist do they. Buudhist? The Zen Principles (yes, they are written down).

"Even if we ignore point 3, can you prove to me that not one of these Codified Theistic and Spiritual Satanists has not written anything down?"

Again, you misinterpret codified.

"'Nothing can exist' Therefor any religion does exist even if someone has not thought of it yet."

Can you read? :

"the absence of an object or person that is not present on/around/below/etc. an object, person, or other PHYSICAL MATTER." Physical Matter. Nothing, in the matter of solid evidence, does exits. IDEAS do not all exist.

"It bases itself off of Ayn Rand and Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophies"

It does not BASE itself off of them. It backs itself up with their ideas. Like evidence for a fact. We are the fact, they are the evidence. We took parts of them, not all of them.

"And who in their right mind names their religion after the most popular religion's devil? Way to discredit your ideas."

Heh, we don't aim for credibility of our religion, we aim for our own belief. As long as people leave us alone, we leave them alone.

Besides, I think you have gone WWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY off the point of the debate. You have provided no evidence or them existing in a codified form. And your definition of codified was not presented. Therefore, with it, it was flawed.
Yrael

Con

Alright cool, line by line.

"No, I said it does NOT exist. I am basically saying Theistic and Spiritual Satanists that have laws and rules do not exist. There is no set standard for what they can be Satan wise."

>> Once again I argue that they have laws and rules, and weather they are written or not does not matter.

"No, I said it does NOT exist. I am basically saying Theistic and Spiritual Satanists that have laws and rules do not exist. There is no set standard for what they can be Satan wise."

>> Erm..... Well lets see. Evangelical Christians believe everyone who is not Christian worships the devil and is satanic. Therefor their code for this would be the bible. As such, some theistic satanists feel to promote evil is best and cite Satan in the bible.

I have noticed a lot of people will use your own satanic bible and interpret it in different ways than you would. Diane Vera seems to have done quite a bit of work writing down Theistic Satanic ideas in some form or another.

If you truely 100% need some form of a bible.... check out the demonic bible by Tsirk Susuj. It comes complete with codes to live by and rituals. You can pick one up at amazon.com here is the link http://www.amazon.com...

"What I meant by Bible is a book that leads the religion (or maybe even a multiple of codified scripts). In any case it would be a Bible just set for a different religion with a different name."

>> Once again I contest your idea, do we really need a bible or some written text to have a religion? You tell me that Greek and Roman philosophy don't exist, i'm not sure what you mean by that, but at some point you must agree with me that they did "exist" and did not have a corresponding religious text. Also you tell me that Jesus did have a bible? No he definitely didn't. The bible was made long long after Jesus' time. Jesus did not follow the old testament and the new testament BEGAN to be compiled about 50 years after Jesus' death.

Finally while I am on this subject you tell me that Socrates was written down. Oh yeah he totally was, but not while he was alive. And you cannot possibly argue that he was unimportant while he was alive. He was sentenced to death because of his ideas. Both Jesus' and Socrates' ideas were important/valid before they became codified.

"Exactly, which is why a codified Theistic Satanist cannot believe in anything because there is no codified version."

>> First look back to my second point I made during this round. Secondly the problem with your idea here is the fact that it is already happening. They already believe in something. Whether it is codified in paper or in thought. Whether they follow the demonic bible or there own ideas. There is still a code which they live by.

"No, they do not have to be. But to be codified, yes. Which is why they do not have any Bibles, Spiritual books, and written guidance anywhere."

>>Uh..... Bibles.... spiritual books...... and written guidance. Please type in "theistic satanism" to google and tell me you can not find something written by someone. Furthermore I once again state something does not need to be written to be codified. I live by a code of my own morals, must I write them down for them to count?

"No, they just were not set in stone. They were not implemented as of yet."

>>Set in stone..... uh? Can I not change my opinion at any time? Does writting something down somehow set it in stone more than thinking it? Only difference I see is that in the former case your going to have to take a couple extra seconds to erase the old thought before you write a new one.

"Ideas are not valid until they are practiced by either a many group of people who believe in that idea, or it is written down for a mass group of followers to follow."

>>Look at Jesus again.

"But then again, someone did write there ideas down. Funny how there ideas were not implemented or given thought until someone wrote them down ;)"

>>Jesus didn't have his thoughts written down to after he was dead, obviously people gave him thought before that. Socrates was put to death before he had his ideas written down. He taught verbally. Obviously they thought highly enough of his ideas to put him to death.

"No, but then again, there is no ounce of evidence that Theistic Satanism exists because in this day in age, people refer to books to be credible (anything can be written on the net). By seeing, for example, a Theistic Satanic Bible I would then accept it if I saw that this Bible made an impact somehow on a multiple of people who followed it delightly."

>>I can find evidence of this everywhere. I can even pull up Wiki to find evidence on this. Then you tell me people refer to books to be credible and anything can be written on the net. Sweet, can't anything be written in a book? And I guarantee you more people read things on the net than they do in books now a days (Ebooks, check those out, sweet idea). Lastly I hand you the demonic bible, there is your evidence, be delighted! Oh and your own bible, sorry people interpret it in ways you do not like.

Looking at the rest of your argument I feel I have amply covered it and going line by line any farther would just make for reiterations. I suppose you want a definition for codified though..... Thus I give you this one.

"I think you don't know what Codified means. Codified: to reduce laws (rules, regulations, etc.) to a code. Codified: to arrange in a systematic collection."

Great, point to me where in that definition it says that it must be written down, and one cannot follow a code within themselves.

With that I offer you a second definition to clarify your first definition.

Code: (n) Any system or collection of rules and regulations: a gentleman's code of behavior.

Not the phrase "any system" in there. Unless the human mind does not somehow meet the requirements for being a system..........
Debate Round No. 2
Scyrone

Pro

The Demonic Bible, eh?

Well here are some comments from some disorganized Theistic Satanists on the Demonic Bible:

http://www.occultforums.com...

"Read the free parts for view on line, not impressed. Makes some unprovable claims and assumptions, I tend to switch off at such points."

"but on closer inspection dont hold much new"

"It seems overly dramatic and fictional to me"

"It's basically a mish-mash of Setian and Thelemic philosophy, a few contrived rituals... nothing new."

"I will simply ditch "plagiarism" and substitute with "unoriginality.""

Exactly. The Demonic Bible is unoriginal, nothing new, fictional, has unprovable claims, and even believes that the Necronomicon is real magic. It is no Bible, jus a personal account of someone and a book that is published by a self-publishing company.

Diane Vera you say?

Here interpretations of Satanism are either LaVey's form, Temple of Set (which was formed by a rogue member of LaVey's group), First Church of Satan and OFS Demonolatry (FCoS was based off of LaVey's ideal and oFS Demonolatry was somewhat based off of LaVey), Satanism from Christianity (which barely mentions anything to say in the least), Joy of Satan (based from HP Lovecraft fictional writings and Islamic texts), Gnostic Luciferianism (the belief in the angel Lucifer, which was a piece of fiction [Paradise Lost]), and Christian based duo-theism (Satan can "win the war against God" and gain Heaven for him and his followers).

She has no originality and makes no new form of Satanism, only those based off of everything else. And she does not recognize your demonic Bible as anything. She even believes that Theistic Satanists should not have any set rules or laws or guidelines. Therefore, she herself thinks that codified Theistic Satanism does not exist.

"do we really need a bible or some written text to have a religion?"

Yes. Jesus did not exist, so he is not an appropriate example. Actually throughout most of Pakistan and the middle east there were a numerous amount of accounts that told of "messiahs" coming and some people that performed magic, but their religions never flourished.

Now, look at the Romans and Greeks this way. They did believe in many Gods, but they were Pagan. And because Paganism never had any real books BACK THEN, they were so easily converted to Christianity because of the Bible that Constantine held and formed. There ideas never stuck because they did not have a religious book. As you see, for ideas to be valid and flourish among a massive group of people, they must have a Bible, which they did not. Neither do the Theistic Satanists, for they deny having one. They do not really exist. They just pretend they do. They use it as a title when really no true Theistic Satanist exists. It is all just a bunch of teenagers that are angry at there parents so they join up with the title out of anger.

"He was sentenced to death because of his ideas. Both Jesus' and Socrates' ideas were important/valid before they became codified."

Oh yea, he was sentenced to death because no one agreed with his ideas. He was a very unpopular man with him and his ideas. He was important, but not his ideas at the time. Again, Jesus did not exist. There is no proof. There ideas were not valid until they were written down.

"Please type in "theistic satanism" to google and tell me you can not find something written by someone."

Something can be written by anyone, but it does not mean it is fully codified.

"Does writting something down somehow set it in stone more than thinking it?"

Yes, for example, the Constitution of the United States of America. Also, money. Do we think through all our money and ours bills? No. We "wrote" them down.

">>Look at Jesus again."

I can't because he is not there.

"Sweet, can't anything be written in a book?"

Yes, unfortunately I said things CAN be credible if they are written in a book. Not they ARE.

"Lastly I hand you the demonic bible, there is your evidence, be delighted!"

Which nobody liked and everyone hated.

"Oh and your own bible, sorry people interpret it in ways you do not like."

How can they misinterpret "you are your own God" and "there are no metaphysical or supernatural beings over you"? They must be pretty stupid to think that they mean the opposite of what they say.

"to arrange in a systematic collection"

You cannot do this by thinking it. Unless you are pure genius, which I don't think you are.

"Code: (n) Any system or collection of rules and regulations: a gentleman's code of behavior."

Codified and Code are different. A Code is what you say it is. Codified is to reduce a code and make it into laws and rules and not just a code anymore. Yes there could be a Theistic person with a code out there, but it does not mean it is codified.

This is why you should vote for me:

1) Disorganized Theistic Satanists and Spiritual Satanist do not believe they should be codified. Therefore, they are not.

2) Although the Con tried to provide evidence of a written version of a Theistic Bible, it was viewed as not really a Bible, rather just a rehash of other people's writings.

3) In order for something to be Codified it must be arranged systematically, reduced to laws and rules, and in other words to be looked at carefully. You cannot arrange or reduce something such as a Constitution in your mind. Therefore it must be written down. But everything that is written down is not credible. It must have an amassing group of followers, which Theistic Satanists fail to prove they have. Therefore, I do not believe they exist.

4) They are not codified in any way according to anyone.

These should provide necessary advantage. I have backed up my claims.

Oh, and P.S. there is a different between a "Code" and "Codified".

Good debate. Thank you for debating me.
Yrael

Con

Alright cool. First off I would like to say thank you for debating this with me, your point of view is at the very least interesting to me. In the spirit of organized debate I won't be bringing up any new ideas in my last round I will simply be addressing points already in the round.

So, the line by line:

"The Demonic Bible, eh?

Well here are some comments from some disorganized Theistic Satanists on the Demonic Bible:

http://www.occultforums.com...;

>> First off I would like to point out you are giving me a forum here. I can go out and find a forum that says anything. Literally anything. Also you assume that these people are theistic satanists but I do not see that stated anywhere; in fact looking at the site i'm not even positive it is based off of satanism....

So now a line by line on info you pulled from the site.....

""Read the free parts for view on line, not impressed. Makes some unprovable claims and assumptions, I tend to switch off at such points.""

>>First off we don't know who this is aside from his screen name being blackadder. Does he happen to be an expert in this field? Secondly unprovable claims and assumptions...... can you point me to a bible that doesn't make unprovable claims? Can the Christian bible prove god exists? Does the Quran? Anyone who doesn't agree with this feel free to vote against me.....

""but on closer inspection dont hold much new""

>> Yeah nice.... let us examine the entire context of this statement. "Theres lots of these types of books that look initially appealing, ~~~but on closer inspection dont hold much new~~~. I havent had a chance to look at this yet, have considered getting a copy. Wondering if it it held up to its claims.
Anyone had much prior experience of it?"

Oh damn.... Ooga_Booga isn't actually talking about the satanic bible at all. He is talking about books he has read.

""It seems overly dramatic and fictional to me""

>>No way!?!?!?!? Once again I'd http://www.debate.org...
Debate.org - Post Your Next Argumentlike to point out Angelus Degenero's opinion doesn't hold sway in this round, however..... You tell me about these sacrificial rituals that these theistic satanists do and try to prove to me that they don't have a codified bible. Yet you are now trying to use this statement to prove to me that their bible, which is dramatic like their religion, does somehow not fit. As far as fictional goes... great!!!! I think every bible out there is fiction and anyone who believes in one god has to think of other bibles as fiction. It can seem as dramatic and fictional as it wants to be and I will totally agree. I think it is dramatic and fictional, but that doesn't stop it from being followed by a dramatic religion.

""It's basically a mish-mash of Setian and Thelemic philosophy, a few contrived rituals... nothing new.""

>>Once again this is a post by random blogger Reise. Secondly let me point out that we are not arguing for originality here, or at least you are not. Your belief in this round is that there is no codified (which you take to mean written in a book as a set of rules) theistic satanic beliefs. Providing that there is a codified theistic satanic belief anywhere you lose your point even if it is as unoriginal as it can be. For it is still codified. Which brings me to my third point, it says it's basically a mish-mash of setian and thelemic philosophy. Cool! What is your religion? If not derived from the philosophies of Nietzsche and Ayn Rand. You have given me no evidence or even an opinion in this debate that there is something wrong with religions derived of other religions and philosophies. And as most are I think there is nothing wrong with it either. My last point.... He says "a few contrived rituals... nothing new" great. You want to know why they weren't new? Because before this they were codified without a bible. The fact that they are now in a bible doesn't actually change anything, because you don't need a bible for codified religion. However the fact that they are now in a bible serves to win me this debate whether the judges agree or disagree with my definition of codified.

""I will simply ditch "plagiarism" and substitute with "unoriginality.""

>>Sweet. Great. How could it possibly be that this demonic bible isn't original? Simply put, because the thoughts and ideas were codified in minor texts, and thoughts before this point. It doesn't take a bible to codify something, the bible simply helps.

"Diane Vera you say?

Here interpretations of Satanism are either LaVey's form, Temple of Set (which was formed by a rogue member of LaVey's group), First Church of Satan and OFS Demonolatry (FCoS was based off of LaVey's ideal and oFS Demonolatry was somewhat based off of LaVey), Satanism from Christianity (which barely mentions anything to say in the least), Joy of Satan (based from HP Lovecraft fictional writings and Islamic texts), Gnostic Luciferianism (the belief in the angel Lucifer, which was a piece of fiction [Paradise Lost]), and Christian based duo-theism (Satan can "win the war against God" and gain Heaven for him and his followers).

She has no originality and makes no new form of Satanism, only those based off of everything else. And she does not recognize your demonic Bible as anything. She even believes that Theistic Satanists should not have any set rules or laws or guidelines. Therefore, she herself thinks that codified Theistic Satanism does not exist."

>>Cool, she takes other's ideas and melds them. A couple of others ideas by the looks of it. She still makes a her own text and it is something that people can and do follow. Therefor it is codified theistic satanism under your definition.

"Jesus did not exist" Notice also you have changed your view on this issue from "Jesus had a bible" to "Jesus didn't exist". You concede the point, Jesus did exist and his religion mattered and was codified without a bible.

>>Romans have accounts of Jesus' existance.

"Now, look at the Romans and Greeks this way....

>>Almost the entire roman empire believed in them at one point. -.-

"Oh yea, he was sentenced to death because no one agreed with his ideas. He was a very unpopular man with him and his ideas."

>>Yeah, if his ideas had been stupid no one would have cared. It was because his ideas were great that he was sentenced to death. And his ideas served to teach many, including Plato. Without being written.

"Yes, for example, the Constitution of the United States of America. Also, money. Do we think through all our money and ours bills? No. We "wrote" them down."

>>Does that set it in stone more? Would the law be any less if it was memorized? Would money be any less set in stone if people memorized how much they had and were honest. No. It is because of our system and how people would abuse it that require money and the law to be written. Notice these are not religious examples.

"Yes, unfortunately I said things CAN be credible if they are written in a book. Not they ARE. "

>>So what are you saying here? That no matter what book I present you it won't be credible thus you win the debate by default?

"Codified and Code are different. A Code is what you say it is. Codified is to reduce a code and make it into laws and rules and not just a code anymore. Yes there could be a Theistic person with a code out there, but it does not mean it is codified."

>>No, this is not what you said before. You have just changed your definition, your old one was. "Codified: to reduce laws (rules, regulations, etc.) to a code." From dictionary.com I specified your definition by defining the word code within it meaning. Code: (n) Any system or collection of rules and regulations: a gentleman's code of behavior. Any system, this means it does not need to be written in a bible or at all.

Thus I win.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Yrael 9 years ago
Yrael
"http://www.debate.org......
Debate.org - Post Your Next Argument"

Please ignore this section of my last speech.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
He said codified theistic and Spiritual Satanism does not exist. You have to understand the statement to understand that it is a fact. If you don't know the meaning of even one of these terms then you really can't make an argument against this.

Codified Theistic and Spiritual Satanism- An organized religion or cult in which Satan as the Devil is deified, and a religious code is written down as sacred text.- This type of religion does not exist.

And so he asserts- "I am what you would call a LaVeyan Satanist (a true Satanist)."

In terms of Satanism as a concept, LaVeyan Satanists ARE "true Satanists", and so to say from his point of view that an established church who can call themselves "satanists" does not in fact exist is a valid argument.
Posted by Collegebro 9 years ago
Collegebro
I'm going to have to agree with Yrael on this one. Arguing that an idea doesn't exist simply because it hasn't been written down is impossible.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
ScyroneYraelTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Modus.Operandi 9 years ago
Modus.Operandi
ScyroneYraelTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
ScyroneYraelTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Ethereal 9 years ago
Ethereal
ScyroneYraelTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
ScyroneYraelTied
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 
Vote Placed by Capt.Herp 9 years ago
Capt.Herp
ScyroneYraelTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by dorobo 9 years ago
dorobo
ScyroneYraelTied
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 
Vote Placed by Collegebro 9 years ago
Collegebro
ScyroneYraelTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by qwerty15ster 9 years ago
qwerty15ster
ScyroneYraelTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by hark 9 years ago
hark
ScyroneYraelTied
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