Is “Satan� actually a competing “god�?

[Zzyzx]

.
Is “Satan� actually a competing “god�?

All we “know� about the Satan character is from the POV of Bible writers – who claim that “he� is inferior to “God� (and presumably Jesus).

Since Bible writers and promoters have a vested interest in glorifying their favorite God(s) they could be expected to bad-mouth / demean / discredit the competition.

Since there is no assurance that there is only one “god� (or three-in-one for Christendom), the opposition might be one (or more) of the thousands of proposed gods. In fact, the only “evidence� for any of them consists of unverified tales, testimonials, conjectures, opinions, beliefs.

Thus, is there any sound reason that “Satan� could not be one of the other proposed gods and be equal in “power� to the Bible God?

“The Bible says� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth in this C&A sub-forum or in this thread.

Perhaps “Satan� isn't really the “bad guy� he is made out to be by promoters of the Bible God. Maybe “he� is another one of the “gods� and is equal to the Bible God and/or Jesus – and no more bad or good (or real or unreal) than they are.

It does not seem as though God and/or Jesus are able to defeat or eliminate Satan. Wonder why?

[catnip]

[Replying to post 4 by catnip]

"Rockin' and Flockin' the hood"
- Blastcat
.

Is “Satan� actually a competing “god�?

No. Satan is equivalent to sin and death. He is compared to, but is not actually Luciifer, a real world king (we now know, although that was forgotten for a time). Satan, in the Book of Job, is shown to be God's prosecutor in God's court. Over time, his legend morphs two ways: biblically and in popular culture. What most people believe about Satan is more from medieval mythology than what is written.

How do you know what Satan is or isn't?
Is it by way of what you think the Bible says?

I will have to remind you that the OP contains this :

“The Bible says� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth in this C&A sub-forum or in this thread.

As I pointed out to Zzyx, there is only one source for the myth of Satan and that is scripture. I did not make any assertions about the validity of those myths. For the record, I don't believe that Satan exists.

All we “know� about the Satan character is from the POV of Bible writers – who claim that “he� is inferior to “God� (and presumably Jesus).

As I said above, Satan is equated with sin and death in scripture and temptation.

Yes, we know the Bible stories. And we also know that Christians interpret these stories in many different ways. The question here is "what if" Satan had been a rival god, and the Bible talks trash about him .. in an ancient version of a rap war:

It is rather ridiculous to discuss the possibility that Satan is a rival god when it is only in the Bible that we have any basis to suggest that Satan is at all real.

"My god is better than your god.. you know that God is good.
Satan be hatin'
But Yahweh be rockin' and flockin' the hood. "
- Blastcat

Cute.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 55 by JLB32168]

At some point would you kindly address the OP question Is "Satan" actually a competing "god"? rather than complaining about the question . . . Fancy footwork and avoidance may fool some people, but not likely too many.

That question was answered in the post from Thu Jul 28, 2016 made @ 2:11 pm. Satan is described as a creature. Creatures cannot be God from the Abrahamic perspective since an aspect of deity is being uncreated. Uncreated and Creature are mutually exclusive concepts.

And who says that the Bible authors wrote about the Satan character accurately, or that the character can't be interpreted in a different way than some Christians do? Is there only ONE way to interpret the Bible, after all?

I think that ALL readers of the Bible are entitled to make up their own minds as to what the Bible MEANS ( literary criticism ).

If the Bible authors, for example, wanted to write against a competing god called Satan. describing it as a "creature" might be one way to do it. Unfortunately, whoever the author were or what their intentions were, is LOST to history. All we have now, are our own personal opinions.

Your opinions are not facts.

Your “rebuttal� was to simply dismiss the Scripture, which provided you with material for your OP, as the rambling fiction by people thinking about imaginary beings.

We don't dismiss the scriptures, we dismiss that it could be "authoritative" about gods.
We are left with stories and myths, legends, metaphors etc... just all the rest of the holy books no Christians believe in.

Confirmation bias makes sure that the good Christian can't understand how that contradiction doesn't make sense.

Let’s say that I wanted to discuss if the BigBad Wolf was wrong to eat Grandmother and to want to eat LRRHood. I would say that A)Animals don’t have moral agency; therefore, they can’t be faulted with moral failures,

The wolf's morality in the story is completely irrelevant to the reality of the story. In the story, the BBW has moral agency. The story isn't ambiguous at all about it in any way. It's super clear.

But it's just a story.

Nobody in his right mind takes the story literally. Not normal adults, in any case. But Christians make a virtue of taking the Bible Satan and Yahweh literally, and outsiders stand amazed at how intellectually proud they all seem to be about the beliefs.

and B)Wolves are carnivores so there’s nothing wrong with them eating that for which they are evolutionary developed

Yeah, but the story isn't at all about animal morality, but HUMAN morality. The kids might not get it, but their parents and teachers should. There's a moral to that story... its a fable... we know the deal with it, and it's very clear.

The bible isn't CALLED a "fable", and all too many Christians take it as TRUE because it's presented as true. In any case, I bet it's a pretty nasty thing to be eaten by a wolf. It's weird to me that I find myself having to explain to an English teacher how stories work.

and that C)LRRHood and the Woodsmen were actually in the wrong for killing the wolf who was merely doing what wolves do.

I don't agree.

A rogue wolf who wants to eat children.. emphasis on PLURAL ( we dont expect the wolf to stop at eating just that one child )... should be stopped somehow. And in some versions, the child was in the belly of the wolf and had to be cut out of the wolf. In that version ( there are many ) there was no choice BUT to kill the wolf, to save the child. But this wolf was a very special wolf who could talk and even deceive a young child that it was her granny. A magic tale about a magic wolf. We have no reason to take this story as REAL at all.

One might rebut that point by saying that the wolf has moral agency in the tale; therefore, he can be faulted with moral failings.

Yup, as I did. But we are still only talking about a TALE. And stories ( tales ) can be interpreted ( literary criticism ).

If I followed your MO, I would respond with “Do you have any evidence that the stupid tale is real?

Absolutely you could reply that. It's exactly what atheists ask of theists all the time.
Posters would do well to emulate Z's fine thinking and writing skills. I know that I try.

Nobody in his right mind goes around proclaiming that just because there is a story about a talking wolf that it's true. Unfortunately, Christians tell us that their god stories are true because it's in the Bible without blinking an eye.

Who's afraid of the big bad god? Not atheists.

No you don’t so you rely on fiction of silly writers.�

I wasn't aware that as an atheist, I had to believe that the story of Little Red Ridding Hood, or any other fiction story. I thought I could leave that kind of mistake to the theists and their Bible.

I’ve not countered that poster’s rebuttal. I’ve gone off on a red herring argument that has nothing to do with the question – most likely because I can’t counter the argument that the wolf possesses aspects proper to humans more so than characteristics proper to C. lupus.

It's not as if we haven't noticed the long red herring by way of strange straw man argument.

This is mangled logic, but that's really besides the point. I think we get what you mean here. You are using a kind of "tu quoque" argument. You say that we atheists are guilty of the same kind of fallacious thinking as your own, so, that makes your case somehow.

You imagine that we believe the Red Riding Hood story the same way that you believe the Bible stories, and that maybe we don't realize it or that we know it and are debating unfairly.

The only thing wrong with your idea is that it's false. Atheists don't really BELIEVE in the Little Red Ridding Hood story, we don't BELIEVE that the wolf could talk and fool people and has human moral standards.

I think that when people live pretending that a story is REAL ( like the Bible stories ) even though there is no reason to think so, they might also imagine that everyone else is just pretending, too. I'm sorry to report to the poster, that at least THIS atheist doesn't base his life on pretending that old stories are "just so".

You’ve done the same, exact, identical, equal thing.

That's an example of the logical fallacy called "tu quoque" which is a subset of the ad hominem fallacy. For those who care about logic I offer this link:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... uoque.html

For those who don't care about such details as sound reasoning, I suggest to never mind the link.

All we “know� about the Satan character is from the POV of Bible writers – who claim that “he� is inferior to “God� (and presumably Jesus).

Since Bible writers and promoters have a vested interest in glorifying their favorite God(s) they could be expected to bad-mouth / demean / discredit the competition.

So it’s your speculation that Satan is being a fall guy and you base this upon your speculation that victors right history.

It's not at all a speculation that the victors write history. The losers sometimes don't survive to write history. ( should we be concerned about the "write" spelling here? )

If gods are of equal power then why is there only bad press?

Perhaps the poster doesn't fully understand how political and religious propaganda works.

The victors here are HUMANS.. not gods. You have to remember that HUMANS are the ones writing, the ones making religions and societies. There is no evidence that we are talking about any REAL gods. It's just that some people like one god over another, and then when they win the religious wars... they get to promote their god better. To the victors go the spoils...

Why can’t the god being bad-mouthed get anything out.

First of all, because gods don't do that. People promote gods, not the other way around. Satan might have been a popular god of some rival tribe. But of course, all of the Bible authorship is COMPLETELY lost to history.

Gods don't seem to promote themselves, PEOPLE do that.

Secondly, there are atheists in the world BECAUSE the "good" god isn't doing a good job of getting HIS word out, either. It's almost as if these gods are just stories and don't really exist at all, isn't it?

Apparently, the Christian god needs ( or at least uses ) apologists to defend that he even EXISTS. I don't debate with GOD.... I debate PEOPLE concerning gods.

All we can do is speculate. I suppose it's really impossible for some Christians to even IMAGINE that we can speculate something different than their standard version. I just call that a spectacular lack of imagination due to dogmatic over-attachment.

Why are his spin doctors unable to make any headway? Where’s his Carrie Washington of Scandal fame? The most logical conclusion is that the two “gods� aren’t equal.

Do you mean the Olivia Pope character in a TV series? This is a fictional character. In a conversation that is affected by the inability to distinguish fact from fiction, your question is a bit... weird. It's also bizarre that you ask for evidence about our speculation when you yourself can offer no evidence for yours. All we can DO is speculate. There are no facts.

The weird thing is that theists believe ANYWAY in spite of their being no evidence that it's true.

It's been 2000 years and the religious spin doctors ( apologists ) have not given us any tangible evidence that the religion is based on anything more than stories and political power.

Since there is no assurance that there is only one “god� [/b][/color](or three-in-one for Christendom), the opposition might be one (or more) of the thousands of proposed gods. In fact, the only “evidence� for any of them consists of unverified tales, testimonials, conjectures, opinions, beliefs.

Except that Christians don’t hold that there is only one God – only that there is one that is uncreated, omnipotent.

That's what he meant. You say that Christians believe in only ONE GOD that is uncreated, and so on.... the rest are less than that. We atheists ask Christians: On what evidence do you base the belief?"

Christians hold that other gods are created entities that Christians call “demons� who mascarade as gods.

Christians hold on to a whole lot of things for which there is no evidence at all but a book, and their own belief.

The Bible says� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth in this C&A sub-forum or in this thread.

Yup – you don’t have to accept the truth of my conclusions; however, your only rebuttals thus far are “The Bible is bunk.� You’ve not addressed the substance of one of my rebuttals, which is avoidance.

You have missed the point of Z's argument almost completely.

You don't seem to understand why, when we are trying to decide if the Bible stories are true, that we can't use the Bible as an authority. This has nothing at all to do with calling it "bunk". We are saying that we can't use a CLAIM to prove a CLAIM. Apparently, this concept is hard for some people to understand. But it's just simple logic.

I have encountered no verifiable evidence that “Satan� is a god or not a god – only tales in religious literature or statements by those who believe the tales.

Okay – so your speculations have no verifiable evidence. I understand.

RIGHT.

The whole point of this thread is that speculation isn't proof for ANYONE of ANYTHING. Not the atheist position OR the theist position.

SPECULATION isn't fact.

But it works both ways.. this isn't a rule for JUST your opponents. It also applies to the Christian position.

I identified that as a possibility – not a certainty.

And your possibility is informed by no verifiable evidence – to use your words. Got it.

You do have it !

But I suspect, only half way. The SPECULATION that the Bible story is literally true about Satan is ALSO INFORMED BY NO verifiable evidence. Do you "got that", too?

Or is confirmation bias your thinking method?

It relates to claims and stories made in Christian literature.

Right. Is there any reason that Christians should believe something different – other than by realizing that their book and their god might not be real (an idea of which you seem to think Christians are oblivious?)

It would be GREAT if theists of any kind could admit that their beliefs COULD BE FALSE. That would be a start. I would be very impressed if you could write that down for all of us to see.. and very clearly. You are so achingly CLOSE...

It would be VERY IMPORTANT if one of them wrote that clearly for all to see. It's not a a common occurrence. Too many Christians are in the habit of presenting an ABSOLUTE certainty about their god beliefs. I don't think anyone has a problem with believers who don't go too far. It's the fundamentalists and zealots we all have problems with.

Thank you for illustrating “addressing the topic� by questioning my use of question marks.

You were upset that I called your debate on the carpet. I said that your question didn’t address your own OP. I’m also an English teacher and didn’t understand the incorrect use of quotation marks.

If we don't understand something, we should just ask. No use being argumentative about such small side issues as the use of question marks. Perhaps someone could start a new thread about that issue... but I don't think there would be much interest.

A question is not a claim. See the “Did Jane go to town?� example to help with understanding.

What evidence are people on either side of the debate supposed to use to defend a position of if Satan is a god or not?

That's the point.

I can't see that there IS any evidence one one side or the other. All we have is speculation. That's the point of the exercise. Perhaps if Christians come to understand that their belief is based on pure speculation, and not FACT, they might be more likely to let it go. We can only SPECULATE that what the Bible says about Satan is true. But of course, we can just as easily speculate that it isn't.

There are two sides to this coin. Maybe when the Christian flips it, he only accepts when it lands "heads" and disregards the possibility of "tails".

According to Christian lore, “Satan� was made by “God�

Yup and this should be of earth shattering consequence for Christians because . . . why exactly?

Apparently, it would be shocking news for some Christians to discover that their beliefs about Satan are ONLY cultural lore ( tradition ).

Okay, then love did not come from God nor did any good actions – which seems to contradict the statement you made immediately above.

God demonstrates love by seeking our happiness w/o expectation of reciprocation.

For others to be able to accept this belief, we would have to ACCEPT that your speculation is true. We are not given any reason to think so. You might believe it, but that's all you can do. You have not even tried to justify it. We cannot take is as a FACT, because it's NOT a fact, but just your speculation. I have to remind you once again that:

Speculation isn't fact.

That is the act of loving and the word we use to describe that abstract action of loving is “Love.� We love because we are made in God’s Image and Likeness - for those who believe that sort of thing.

Christians have all kinds of beliefs that aren't justified based on stories that aren't justified. As an atheist, this is the same kind of thing as some grown up believing that the story of the Little Red Ridding Hood is literally true, and basing their whole lives on THAT.

I might not be shocked by a three year old not being able to tell the difference between fact and fiction.. but for an English teacher, I find it quite bizarre and disturbing.

When I eat I am responsible for the outcome.

You didn’t answer the question but are avoiding it. Do you make “eat� or do you just eat?

Trivial.

It would be just as meaningless to ask you "Did you make that question or did you just question?" ... This kind of word game is perfectly meaningless. I am puzzled to find that this kind of language comes from an English teacher.

The poster presents a trivial and completely irrelevant play on English grammar as if it were reasoned debate.

Can you present any verifiable evidence that “Satan� is NOT a “God� or can you not present verifiable evidence?

Why is Satan in quotation marks?

Are you asking for a grammar lesson?

God with a capital “G� is commonly identified as the Judeo-Chrsitian deity, which Satan is not. God with a miniscule “g� is a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes and in that respect Satan is a god since he has some power over those things; however, he isn’t omnipotent and he isn’t created according to the source you’ve cited that mentions him – unless of course you have other evidence that suggests differently.

Words have a lot of usages. Most posters know about how the word "god" is used. And, it might be surprising for some to discover that some of us even know how to punctuate.

I would hope that our debates would actually be about something else than punctuation, however. How about the nature of the story book character "Satan"?

There does not appear to be any verifiable evidence to distinguish between “Satan� and “God� – only tales in religious literature and claims by religious dogma / doctrine (often parroted by believers).

So then this entire thread was a ridiculous exercise.

Non sequitur conclusion.

A conclusion comes at the end of an argument.

You have not offered any reasoning for your conclusion. When I see a "So, " at the start of a sentence, I expect that an actual argument has led up to it. I look back for it. In this case... the poster offers a conclusion without an argument.

So, we are presented with an unsupported opinion thinly disguised as an argument.


Opinion =1, Arguments = 0

[JLB32168]

The Satan character in stories who is variously described.

I’ll make this easy. If we cannot conclusively prove the existence of God, which you know, then why do you ask if Satan is just another god? That simply makes no sense whatsoever.
What purpose do the rest of your questions serve since they are founded in the question of Satan being a competing deity when deities cannot be conclusively proved to exist?

I must admit that this specific board’s existence doesn’t make sense since all questions about theology presuppose the possibility of a deity existing. If one cannot allow that then why do skeptics/atheists ask questions on Christian theology?

I noticed that you had nothing to say on my classification of the style of most skeptics on this board and here’s the example.

• Question: Was the Wolf morally wrong to eat Grandmother and then attempt to eat LRRHood?
  
  Party “A� says, “No, the Wolf committed no crime/moral failing.� The evidence given for that assertion is 1)Animals don’t have moral agency; therefore, they can’t be faulted with moral failures; B)Wolves have evolved to be carnivores to survive and we don’t fault organisms with moral errors when they are doing according to their nature to survive; C)LRRHood and the Woodsmen were actually in the wrong because they killed a wolf for doing that which a wolf does, which is akin to punishing the blind student for failing to copy down the information on the board.
  
  Party “Skeptic�, if s/he wants to debate the question in good faith would say, “While the species C. lupus doesn’t have moral agency and kills other organisms for survival, the wolf in LLRHood shows elements of personification, that is, he has been given qualities/motives of human nature. He can speak, be deceptive, etc. Since that is the case, one can morally fault the wolf and justify the Woodsman’s action in killing him to help Grandma escape unharmed.�

No one has conceded here the LLRHood, the Wolf, the Woodsman actually existed and even if Party “A� did think the fairy tale was real there’s no obligation for Party “Skeptic� to accept it as true and both parties should understand this.

The argumentation of most skeptics on this board here follows thus:

• Party “Skepticâ€� says, “The personified characters in stories are variously described. Is there anything to affirm that the wolf isn't one of the archetypes from other fairy tales? The tale of LLRHood has no copyright on animals as representations of evil. Do you have any Substantiation? Verification? that any of the characters in this story you’ve cited actually exist??â€�

Party “Skeptic� hasn’t not countered anything in “Party A’s� assertion; Party “Skeptic� has merely gone off on a red herring argument that has nothing to do with the question – most likely because s/he can’t counter the argument that the wolf is an animal and can’t be faulted with any evil motive/action. Avoidance of a question is an admission of defeat on the part of the avoider. It’s like the kid "Joe" who challenges Bob to a basketball game saying, “I can beat you like a cook beats an egg,� but who starts losing to Bob, stops the game saying, “I’m taking my ball home. You didn’t win. Nya, nya, nya, nya, nya!�

[JLB32168]

That is a grammatical point. We can "create chaos". You are arguing about English usage, rather pointlessly.

No – I’m arguing that actions aren’t created things; therefore, God cannot be accused of creating actions. Instead, people who do actions are responsible for them.

His mum wasn't the creator of the universe. A slight difference.

It’s a big difference but I don’t see how it changes things. In fact, I think it’s an irrelevant distraction that you won’t be able to relate to the question at hand. My fourth degree great-grandfather was responsible for the creation of hundreds of “Smiths� (I’m changing the name) and was a mayor of a southern city. He had great power and influence. His descendants owned slaves and there was one murderer among them. Is he morally culpable for the actions of his descendants, w/o which they wouldn’t have come into existence?

Parents of children did NOT create as did God.

So what??! Why is that relevant to anything here?

God is better compared with the maker of something that proves to be faulty, and so he has responsibility for what he has made.

Man was faulty? How?? What could God have done that would make man faultless?

Well he did, miraculously then - earthquakes, disease .....

Those are easily explained as consequences of the Fall, which wasn’t God’s doing but man’s.

I was answering your point that God made men perfect but they succumbed to evil.

You’re answering somebody’s point but not mine. I never said that God made men perfect. In fact, I said that anything made cannot be perfect since it is capable of change for the better or for the worse. If something is perfect then it cannot improve upon itself but is at the apex. Neither can it slide from that position since perfection entails the inability to devolve.

I had said that God made imperfect artefacts and you denied this.

I said that the process in which they were made was a perfect process. That’s different from saying that they were created as perfect creations/creatures.

If earthquakes and tsunamis are flaws in creation, then they are God's flaws.

That’s rot.

Adam fell - therefore earthquakes! Adam did not, in his fall, create an earthquake.

Adam was a creature. His ontology was “created� as opposed to “uncreated.� My genes are such that black hair is dominant; therefore, my children are dark headed and not like their mother who is a blond. My genes will affect the hair color of every child who comes after me in my lineage. Adam’s ontology was connected with all others; therefore, when he corrupted the ontology of created then all creation was affected deleteriously.

If one introduces one germ into a sterile environment then the one who brought in the contagion is responsible for polluting the environment and not the one who built it. You’re creating an illogical special pleading to excuse everything else from the same scrutiny that you apply to God and that one criterion is “They only made some things while God made all� and I still have yet to see why that changes anything about the fact that we don’t blame parents for the failings of their children.

[JLB32168]

And who says that the Bible authors wrote about the Satan character accurately, or that the character can't be interpreted in a different way than some Christians do?

So let’s just speculate ad nauseam. Maybe Satan was a flower. Is there any evidence that the writers wrote about him inaccurately or is the evidence that they did found in “it’s possible they did�? I’ll concede that the possibility exists. I just don’t see the value of that argument – certainly not in moving objective third parties to consider Zz’s point as compelling.

Your opinions are not facts.

And again we have the Captain Obvious statements. Did you know that the temperature of the sun is hot on any given day?

We don't dismiss the scriptures, we dismiss that it could be "authoritative" about gods.

What is authoritative about gods, pray expound?

The wolf's morality in the story is completely irrelevant to the reality of the story.

I’m not discussing the reality of the story and I think it would be a stupid discussion anyway. Why discuss it at all if we have to establish its reality first before moving onto the question?
Why ask theological questions if the discussion must first begin with establishing that the Theos exists? That’s beyond idiotic. Why must every immediate rebuttal from a skeptic be one calling into question God’s existence or a reminder that the things being asked about him might be fairy tales? Can no skeptic contribute an original thought outside of that one?

A rogue wolf who wants to eat children . . .

This is another example of completely missing the point!

I’m not going to entertain your points on the wolf since it’s just a fairy tale and you can’t prove he exists. Does that sound familiar? It should.

The rest of your post is just more of the obvious – that Christians argue that they’re beliefs are true and they need to be reminded about that constantly and the best way to do that is to start a discussion on whether or not Satan is a deity because those two things are inextricably related

I have no idea why you introduced the Tu quoque into this discussion.

And we have more of the rehashing of the argument, “Christians treat their beliefs as verified fact,� which doesn’t address a single thing that I, personally, have said. You guys seem to constantly debate things that other Christians say (and wish I said) rather than address arguments that I actually present and it doesn't speak well for your ability to defend your point.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 61 by catnip]

How do you know what Satan is or isn't?
Is it by way of what you think the Bible says?

I will have to remind you that the OP contains this :

“The Bible says� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth in this C&A sub-forum or in this thread.

As I pointed out to Zzyx, there is only one source for the myth of Satan and that is scripture. I did not make any assertions about the validity of those myths. For the record, I don't believe that Satan exists.

Ok, I came into this discussion a little late, and haven't been following your position very much. So, if you don't believe in Satan, do you believe in Yahweh?

Yes, we know the Bible stories. And we also know that Christians interpret these stories in many different ways. The question here is "what if" Satan had been a rival god, and the Bible talks trash about him .. in an ancient version of a rap war:

It is rather ridiculous to discuss the possibility that Satan is a rival god when it is only in the Bible that we have any basis to suggest that Satan is at all real.

It's only in the Bible that Yahweh is real, too. We aren't really asking if Satan is real. We are asking if Satan couldn't have been a competing god that the Bible authors wrote about so negatively to disparage some rival tribe's beliefs.

"My god is better than your god.. you know that God is good.
Satan be hatin'
But Yahweh be rockin' and flockin' the hood. "
- Blastcat

Cute.

Thanks.

[Monta]

.
Is “Satan� actually a competing “god�?

It does not seem as though God and/or Jesus are able to defeat or eliminate Satan. Wonder why?

Satan signifies self derived intelligence.
Is it competing with God, of course.

It's done very well. We have seen statues and temples built to it.

Satan has been defeated long time ago but man has been given a choice whom or what he shall worsghip.

[JLB32168]

It is rather ridiculous to discuss the possibility that Satan is a rival god when it is only in the Bible that we have any basis to suggest that Satan is at all real.

I agree. It’s like discussing Othello while saying that none of Shakespeare’s works are authoritative on the subject.

Let’s just posit a question on Othello, "Was Othello the victim of racism or jealousy?"

If I’m the typical “DebateChristianity.com� skeptic my immediate response will be “We’ve no proof that Othello exists.� Where do we go from there? It's simple - we can't go anywhere from there since the skeptic's point was to remind people who study Othello that Othello doesn't exist. Apparently the skeptic A)thinks that the question of Othello's downfall is the best way to discuss the fact that Othello might not exist (which is stupid sense if you ask me) or B)has nothing to actually contribute to the reason for Othello's downfall since it wanders into the area of "original thinking and discourse."

[Zzyzx]

.

The Satan character in stories who is variously described.

I’ll make this easy. If we cannot conclusively prove the existence of God, which you know, then why do you ask if Satan is just another god? That simply makes no sense whatsoever.

All of these debates are conducted with the knowledge (by most) that existence of supernatural deities cannot be conclusively proved. If Theists could provide even strong, credible, verifiable evidence – short of conclusive proof – there would be little or no need for debate.

Instead, Theists believe (without conclusive proof – or verifiable evidence) in the existence of their favorite deities, demean competing deity beliefs (often citing lack of evidence or proof), and attack arguments and/or people that express disbelief in the favorites. They attempt to defend ancient tales and various testimonials without having any evidence that can be verified as truthful and accurate.

What purpose do the rest of your questions serve since they are founded in the question of Satan being a competing deity when deities cannot be conclusively proved to exist?

Astute readers may understand that my many questions are intended to expose the illogic and irrationality inherent in claiming knowledge of invisible, undetectable, proposed supernatural entities.

Less astute defenders of the faith are welcome to continue with increasingly irrational statements, citing unverified ancient tales and testimonials to “support� their contentions – while making a plethora of excuses for why they cannot demonstrate that they speak truth.

Many attempt to defend by attacking the questions or the questioner – as we see here.

I must admit that this specific board’s existence doesn’t make sense since all questions about theology presuppose the possibility of a deity existing.

This sub-forum does NOT preclude the POSSIBILITY of deities existing.

However, if your understanding or misunderstanding of Guidelines causes you to think that the existence of this sub-forum does not make sense why are you attempting to debate here?

There are sub-forums that DO presuppose the existence of a deity – where presuppositionists are welcome to presuppose to their heart's content and discuss their presuppositions with one another.

If one cannot allow that then why do skeptics/atheists ask questions on Christian theology?

This Non-Theist asks questions to illustrate (for benefit of readers) the many defects in claims, stories and statements from Christian theology.

I noticed that you had nothing to say on my classification of the style of most skeptics on this board and here’s the example.

A common tactic to avoid debate of issues raised and questions asked is to focus on matters OTHER than the issues and questions (often going to great lengths with discussion of matters that have nothing to do with the issues and questions).

[Zzyzx]

.

Satan signifies self derived intelligence.

There seems to be a great deal of disagreement within Christendom about what Satan is or signifies. Which opinion is authoritative?

Satan has been defeated long time ago but man has been given a choice whom or what he shall worsghip.

If Satan was defeated long ago why is “he� (or it) still cited as a causative agent in “evil� actions?

When and by whom / what was Satan said to be defeated?

In keeping with the OP, what precludes Satan being one of the proposed gods worshiped by other religions?