Codified Theistic and Spiritual Satanism does not exist.

"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.