Atheism/Satanism/Humanism/New World Religion

[Jan Ardena]

This is in response to James from the "I Hate Atheists" thread, who appears to be trigger-happy with regards to killing threads which scrutanize atheism. So I have created a new thread in an attempt to reveal the true identity of atheism as opposed to the 'designer label' which is given by atheists to give credibility to their weak position.

Secular humanists believe that governments, in particular, don't have the right to impose religion upon the people.

Why not?

That is different from advocating non-belief in gods.

No. It is ‘actively’ advocating non-belief in God or gods.

It is probably true that many secular humanists are atheists, but that does not make atheism a central tenet of secular humanism.

I agree that their declaration is worded in that way, but the reality is, you cannot be a theist and a secular humanist at the same time.

And secular humanism isn't an "organisation", either. It's a philosophy.

A philosophy that is very up and running.

Neither secular humanism nor satanism hold much sway among most of the people in the world today.

On the contrary, as globalisation becomes more encompassing, humanism and Satanism are predominant among most people of the world, especially the young.

Most people in the world follow major religions such as Christianity or Hinduism.

If a religion is not God-centered, then it is man-centered. If it is man-centered, then it is humanist/Satanist.

Yes, that's perfectly true of some atheists. Are you attempting to tar all atheists with the same brush?

No.
Which is why I said “some atheists”.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Mystech]

On the contrary, as globalisation becomes more encompassing, humanism and Satanism are predominant among most people of the world, especially the young.

I'll agree that secular humanism as a philosophy has been gaining stronger legs as a philosophy in the western world for at least the last two hundred years, but do you really think that Satanism is even half so prevalent or influential? I honestly don't know of a single Satanist that isn't just some silly teenager professing to be involved with Satanism to piss off their parents. . . either that or a rock star with a lot of time and money invested in making himself seem like the anti-Christ.

Spook stories about Satanic cults, or even the evils of witchcraft seem to be pretty common among radical evangelical Christians in the US. Most of us just sit back and laugh, as the idea of such a thing genuinely being a problem is laughable. It tends to lend itself to such ideas as mass burnings of copies of the latest Harry Potter book.

 

[water]

Some atheists say there is no "deeper meaning" to life, that life "just is", ultimately meaningless. Yet they deem themselves to be rational. How one can be rational and claim there is no meaning to life, is beyond me. If there is no meaning to what one does, then one does it irrationally. Alright, but how then can this same person then call himself rational?

 

[Mystech]

Well you're describing nihilism or possibly existentialism, not atheism. Let's not project our fears about other philosophies which may sometimes accompany atheism.

Besides, one need not feel that there's some mystical higher-reason for existence to want to create a better world to live in. We can still care about the quality of our own lives, of those around us, and of our children and generations beyond that. If one doesn't expect to be rewarded with some sort of fabulous afterlife, then hopefully they'll try to make actual life as pleasant as they can for themselves and others. It’d be a shame to waste the only time you get feeling miserable and moping around when you're capable of so many other more pleasant emotions and deep fulfilling personal connections.

 

[water]

Well you're describing nihilism or possibly existentialism, not atheism. Let's not project our fears about other philosophies which may sometimes accompany atheism.

The corollarium of atheism is nihilism.
Without there being a God as the highest authority on everything, there is no proper justification for anything. Then, it is all a matter of whose fists are stronger.

Besides, one need not feel that there's some mystical higher-reason for existence to want to create a better world to live in. We can still care about the quality of our own lives, of those around us, and of our children and generations beyond that.

Sure. But what is your justification for that?
Atheism would work fine if all people would be moral. But ther eis always a % of the population that is immoral and doesn't obey the laws, and you are facing harm being done to innocent ones. Do you allow for that, or do you sanction?

If one doesn't expect to be rewarded with some sort of fabulous afterlife, then hopefully they'll try to make actual life as pleasant as they can for themselves and others.

Hopefully.
The oil runs out in ... how few years?

It’d be a shame to waste the only time you get feeling miserable and moping around when you're capable of so many other more pleasant emotions and deep fulfilling personal connections.

Sure. Noone is saying that to be religious equals devaluing this life.

 

[Sarkus]

Some atheists say there is no "deeper meaning" to life, that life "just is", ultimately meaningless. Yet they deem themselves to be rational. How one can be rational and claim there is no meaning to life, is beyond me. If there is no meaning to what one does, then one does it irrationally. Alright, but how then can this same person then call himself rational?

I seem to be missing the bit where you connect rationality to needing a meaning for life.
I actually think it's irrational to believe that a meaning has been bestowed upon us by some higher power.

As Mystech said, you are describing nihilism - where everything is deemed meaningless so "what's the point?".
But this is not atheism.
Some atheists may also walk down the path of nihilism, but they are not the same thing.

I am an atheist but certainly not a nihilist.
I accept that my life ultimately has no meaning - in the grand scheme of the Universe - but that doesn't stop me accepting that I exist, that I am here and now, and assigning my own meaning and purpose to my life.
But I do not pretend that some deity has given me a meaning, or a purpose. THAT is irrational.

Atheism would work fine if all people would be moral. But ther eis always a % of the population that is immoral and doesn't obey the laws, and you are facing harm being done to innocent ones. Do you allow for that, or do you sanction?

You seem to think that only atheists can be immoral? There will always be a % of the population unwilling to live by the rules and laws of the society in which they live. And unfortunately on this planet there is precious little space left for them to live how they wish - i.e. 99% of the population MUST belong to a society and obey that society's rules. This is irrespective of religion.
More harm IS done (to "innocents") by religious people than by atheist.

Without religions, society would STILL have its laws, its rules, and its small % of population that didn't follow them.

 

[audible]

Some atheists say there is no "deeper meaning" to life, that life "just is", ultimately meaningless.

water could you show references, to this claim, as I have never come across it.
thank you.

 

[ellion]

More harm IS done (to "innocents") by religious people than by atheists.

so the majority of harm inflicted on people is done by the religious. all those violent crimes, sexual violence, domestic violence, street crime, drug trafficking, all those events which are constantly reccuring in our cultures are mostly crimes of religious people? ?

 

[Sarkus]

so the majority of harm inflicted on people is done by the religious. all those violent crimes, sexual violence, domestic violence, street crime, drug trafficking, all those events which are constantly reccuring in our cultures are mostly crimes of religious people? ?

In that 90% of the world purport to be of one religious denomination or another - yes, I would say the majority IS done by religious people.

Then we have the fundamentalists, the fanatics, the terrorism in Ireland etc - where although politics is obviously also at the heart - the people involved are undeniably religious.

Or are you claiming that to be a "religious" person you have to be of the 0% of the population never have to committed a sin?

 

[audible]

If a religion is not God-centered, then it is man-centered. If it is man-centered, then it is humanist/Satanist.Jan Ardena.

you seem constantly trying to conjoin humanism with satanism, why I dont know.
if jesus christ existed then he was a humanist, as would be god.
xianity preaches there love for humanity, which is exactly what humanist feel.
if that is satanism the all xians are satanist.
does not god want the best for his children, does jesus not want the best for his brethren.
humanism is the same thing, just without the deity, does that make it evil.
is it evil for wanting the same thing as god, is it evil to want the same thing as jesus.

 

[ellion]

i am making no claims. i am wondering if you actually belive what you said or if it was just something convenient to attack the religious %.

 

[Sarkus]

It is not an attack on the religious % at all - it is merely an attack against the apparent view that atheists are inherently immoral and the cause for all attacks against the rest of the populace.

Water's view was:

Atheism would work fine if all people would be moral. But there is always a % of the population that is immoral and doesn't obey the laws, and you are facing harm being done to innocent ones. Do you allow for that, or do you sanction?

The clear implication, intentional or otherwise, is that only atheists can be immoral and cause problems. I am merely highlighting the significant flaw in this view.

 

[water]

In that 90% of the world purport to be of one religious denomination or another - yes, I would say the majority IS done by religious people.

You'd have a point if you can prove that the crimes done -- all the "usual" crimes -- are in direct connection to the perpetrators being religious.

Prove that raping, stealing, murdering etc. is caused by the perpetrator being religious.

Or are you claiming that to be a "religious" person you have to be of the 0% of the population never have to committed a sin?

No. I just don't think that there is a significant relation between, for example, the rapist's raping and his being religious.


Also, simply nominally belonging to a religion does not make one religious. If people don't practice their religion, then we can't call them religious.

 

[water]

Sarkus,

It is not an attack on the religious % at all - it is merely an attack against the apparent view that atheists are inherently immoral and the cause for all attacks against the rest of the populace.

Water's view was:

“ Originally Posted by water
Atheism would work fine if all people would be moral. But there is always a % of the population that is immoral and doesn't obey the laws, and you are facing harm being done to innocent ones. Do you allow for that, or do you sanction? ”

The clear implication, intentional or otherwise, is that only atheists can be immoral and cause problems. I am merely highlighting the significant flaw in this view.

You surely have an art of reading into people's words ...

I have made no such implication as you say above.


Any idealistic worldview -- such as humanism, into which atheism can be incorporated -- works well if ALL members of society adhere to it.

But with human populations it is so that there is always a % who don't adhere to the worldview. It is because of this minority that society needs to establish laws and sanction them to protect itself.

It is the justification of these laws and sanctions that is so problematic. If you are a humanist and say all human life is sacred, how then can you punish (even with a capital sentence) a serial killer?
The killer disrespected the value of all human life being sacred -- what do you do with him? Let him kill more? Lock him up? What justification do you have for doing so, if "*all* human life is sacred" (and by locking him up or even executing him, you are disrespecting your own values)?

 

[Sarkus]

In that 90% of the world purport to be of one religious denomination or another - yes, I would say the majority IS done by religious people.

You'd have a point if you can prove that the crimes done -- all the "usual" crimes -- are in direct connection to the perpetrators being religious.

Prove that raping, stealing, murdering etc. is caused by the perpetrator being religious.

I'm confused. Why exactly do I need to prove that the crimes are the result of the person being religious to be able to say that the majority of crimes are done by religious people?

I'm not saying that they are done for religious purposes, or as a result of them being religious - but I am merely saying that they are done by religious people.

No. I just don't think that there is a significant relation between, for example, the rapist's raping and his being religious.

I don't think there is either (for the "normal" crimes) - and nor have I implied there is.

Also, simply nominally belonging to a religion does not make one religious. If people don't practice their religion, then we can't call them religious.

Ah - then this is the crux. How do you differentiate someone who "practices" their religion and someone who merely claims to be religious? Where exactly do you draw the line?
If you instantly discount someone who has committed a crime from being truly religious then of course, by default, all crimes are committed by non-religious.

And of course, these people, even if unreligious, would still be theists - and certainly not atheists, as you implied (albeit possibly unintentionally) earlier.

 

[ellion]

water.

Atheism would work fine if all people would be moral. But there is always a % of the population that is immoral and doesn't obey the laws, and you are facing harm being done to innocent ones. Do you allow for that, or do you sanction?

atheism only works where god is excluded from reality.

this statement also seems to suggest religious cultures are only ethical constucts.

sarkus.

The clear implication, intentional or otherwise, is that only atheists can be immoral and cause problems. I am merely highlighting the significant flaw in this view.

i dont think this is implied in waters statement. she is saying that not all people are moral. that if all people were moral atheism might work.

 

[water]

I seem to be missing the bit where you connect rationality to needing a meaning for life.
I actually think it's irrational to believe that a meaning has been bestowed upon us by some higher power.

We are not our own creators, none of us has given himself or herself life. You did not invent or create English, you did not create thinking. None of the things you have is truly yours, everything can be taken away from you.
Question is, where did you get it from, then?

I am an atheist but certainly not a nihilist.
I accept that my life ultimately has no meaning - in the grand scheme of the Universe - but that doesn't stop me accepting that I exist, that I am here and now, and assigning my own meaning and purpose to my life.

How can you organize a society and establish laws, if each person thinks the way you do, and has his or her own meaning and purpose, opposing that there be one that is common and obligatory to all?


(Audible, here's your example.)

Without religions, society would STILL have its laws, its rules, and its small % of population that didn't follow them.

Exactly. The issue is how a society's laws are justified. Or are they ultimatley meaningless and justice is a joke?

 

[Arditezza]

The meaning of life, of existence... is to make others lives easier to bear. To have love and compassion so great that your memory will be cherished, remembered and honoured by generations to come. To impact humanity in such a positive way that your existence becomes important to the development of society toward more positive goals. Every birth has a meaning, and that is to add to humanity.

So saith the atheist.

 

[water]

Sarkus,

I'm confused. Why exactly do I need to prove that the crimes are the result of the person being religious to be able to say that the majority of crimes are done by religious people?

I'm not saying that they are done for religious purposes, or as a result of them being religious - but I am merely saying that they are done by religious people.

What is your case against the religious and theists, then?

No. I just don't think that there is a significant relation between, for example, the rapist's raping and his being religious.

I don't think there is either (for the "normal" crimes) - and nor have I implied there is.

What is your case against the religious and theists, then?

Ah - then this is the crux. How do you differentiate someone who "practices" their religion and someone who merely claims to be religious? Where exactly do you draw the line?

Someone external to religion cannot measure that. Only those who know what a certain religion is to be like can make such assessments.

If you instantly discount someone who has committed a crime from being truly religious then of course, by default, all crimes are committed by non-religious.

I'm not saying that.

And of course, these people, even if unreligious, would still be theists - and certainly not atheists, as you implied (albeit possibly unintentionally) earlier.

And?
They are atheistic in regards to the true God.

One can easily be a nominal Christian, and value material possessions above all. This, in effect, makes him an atheist. For such a person's god is money, and money is not the true God.

 

[water]

The meaning of life, of existence... is to make others lives easier to bear. To have love and compassion so great that your memory will be cherished, remembered and honoured by generations to come. To impact humanity in such a positive way that your existence becomes important to the development of society toward more positive goals. Every birth has a meaning, and that is to add to humanity.

What is your justification for this? How do you sanction the trespassing of what you have stated above?

On what grounds do you punish the serial killer?

If you have no justification and no sanctioning of tresspasses, or if it is all relativistic to you, then you might just as well not have any morality at all.