Codified Theistic and Spiritual Satanism does not exist.

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.