Atheism/Satanism/Humanism/New World Religion

[Sarkus]

Sarkus,

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

So I've been told.

I have made no such implication as you say above.

Apologies, but this is the way it came across to me. To say that "atheism would work fine if all people were moral" implies to me that religion is the only thing keeping morality in check - and if you remove religion then the world would disintegrate into an immoral mess.

Again, apologies if I am incorrect in the implications. Maybe I am just misunderstanding the point of the comment.

Let's move on.

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)?

Ah - I see where you're coming from / going.

The same problem arises regardless of the basis the rules.
You currently have, in the US, some states that allow for capital punishment and some that don't.
Which is right?
Both states would claim to be justified in their laws even though they stem from the same teachings - Christianity.
It would be no different if the basic teaching was a non-religious one - e.g. humanism.

 

[Sarkus]

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

I am putting no "case against" the religious or the theist - but I defending the case of those that aren't.

If 90% of the world are religious / theist and 90% of the crimes are committed by religious / theists, then it is a clear indication that the committing of a crime is independent of religious or theistic beliefs.

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

Who is anyone to judge? Surely only your God can assess who is religious or not?

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.

Pedantic and elitist rubbish.
You are judging the religious virtues of people in relation to only your God.
You might believe that yours is the true God - but Joe Bloggs down the road believes HIS is the true God.
You can't both be right, surely?
Thus your own logic dictates that you are both atheists with respect to each other's deities.
Therefore everyone must be atheist?
Therefore we must already live in an atheist society?

 

[audible]

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.

how the do you get from this, to this

What is your justification for this?

wtf, he's an atheist thats is justification, thats what I and I am sure 99.999999999999% of atheist/humanists believe is the meaning of life.

How do you sanction the trespassing of what you have stated above?

what trespassing, where the f**k did that come from.

On what grounds do you punish the serial killer?

wtf has that got to do with arditezza, statement.

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

wtf, I like you water but now you've lost it.
where in the Arditezza statement, does he mention, commiting an offense.
how can it be relativistic, and why would it be immoral. you make no sense at all.

 

[stefan]

yes I'd have to agree, what does it have to do with arditezza statement water, please elaborate, thank you.

jan ardenna: you seem to have very atheistic tendances towards any belief system/ or religion that is not yours.

 

[water]

how the do you get from this, to thiswtf, he's an atheist thats is justification, thats what I and I am sure 99.999999999999% of atheist/humanists believe is the meaning of life. what trespassing, where the f**k did that come from.wtf has that got to do with arditezza, statement.wtf, I like you water but now you've lost it.
where in the Arditezza statement, does he mention, commiting an offense.
how can it be relativistic, and why would it be immoral. you make no sense at all.

Look. If what Arditezza proposed is tresspassed (and it is; murders, rapes, thefts etc. happen daily), then how does she propose those tresspasses be sanctioned, on what grounds?
Sanctionig those tresspasses inherently contradicts the very values she espouses.

It is inconsistent if a society claims that all life is sacred, and then punishes serial killers, for example.

 

[Silas]

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?

Some people consider that self-evident. Examples of places where the government imposes religion upon the people include Iran, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. The most notable evidence of the effect of state religion on these people is manifestly out-of-proportion punishments and the continued subjugation of women. Naziism took the form of state-sanctioned (indeed state-ordered) trial-less imprisonment, forced ghetto-isation and ultimately mass murder of the members of a different religious group. Ethnic cleansing in Serbia was also manifested by what passed for a state during the conflicts in the Balkans.

That is different from advocating non-belief in gods.

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

Argument, please! Evidence! Can we not reduce a debate to "No it isn't times a hundred, and no returns." Justify your statement.

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.

No, that is not the reality. Secular humanism as a philosophical basis of government has been promulgated and executed by Christians and atheists alike, from the Founding Fathers of the United States to (devout Christian) Tony Blair.

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

A philosophy that is very up and running.

Well, thank heavens for that!

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.

I agree with your statement that the majority of people, while paying lip service to some religion or other, by and large behave in a secular manner. "Satanism" as a religion is an extremely minority cult that does not have many serious followers.

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.

Now you're imposing the values of your religion on people of other religions. The one genuinely non-theistic large scale religion, Buddhism, certainly would strenuously deny that their beliefs are man-centred. Applying "Satanism" to any belief other than Christianity is merely sectarian, intolerant and ignorant.

 

[water]

If 90% of the world are religious / theist and 90% of the crimes are committed by religious / theists, then it is a clear indication that the committing of a crime is independent of religious or theistic beliefs.

Is this truly your position?

Who is anyone to judge? Surely only your God can assess who is religious or not?

Yes.

Pedantic and elitist rubbish.
You are judging the religious virtues of people in relation to only your God.

Everyone does so.

You might believe that yours is the true God - but Joe Bloggs down the road believes HIS is the true God.

Yes.

You can't both be right, surely?

It all depends on who is to judge.

Thus your own logic dictates that you are both atheists with respect to each other's deities.

Yes, this is one of the consequences.

Therefore everyone must be atheist?
Therefore we must already live in an atheist society?

No, this doesn't follow.
I might be an atheist to you, but not to someone else.

 

[Silas]

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)?

None of this makes the remotest sense, water. Atheists deny the existence of God. They do not deny the existence of society. Society determines the transgressions of their moral values, and the punishment for so doing, hopefully by means of democracy. Those punishments are invariably some removal of the rights accorded normally to members of the society, such as freedom, the right to own property, the right to travel unfettered anywhere in your state or indeed out of the state. Sarkus et al have been saying "Atheists are not without morals" and your answer is, "If atheists have no morals how do you punish someone?" Well, atheists are not without morals. Q.E.D. (!)

In any case, since transgression and non-100% compliance with a moral code pre-dates atheism and secular humanism, how does the presence or absence of God make any difference?

Look. If what Arditezza proposed is tresspassed (and it is; murders, rapes, thefts etc. happen daily), then how does she propose those tresspasses be sanctioned, on what grounds?
Sanctionig those tresspasses inherently contradicts the very values she espouses.

It's hard to rationally answer a point which is so evidently without merit. If a person transgresses the values, obviously they do not have the right to the same consideration as someone who has not so transgressed. "Do Not Hurt Anybody" does not mean "There Is No More Law." It means, don't hurt anyone, and society will punish you if you do - irrespective of your own rights not to be hurt. This is something society does and has always done whether it is God-driven or not.

 

[audible]

Look. If what Arditezza proposed is tresspassed (and it is; murders, rapes, thefts etc. happen daily), then how does she propose those tresspasses be sanctioned, on what grounds?
Sanctionig those tresspasses inherently contradicts the very values she espouses.

It is inconsistent if a society claims that all life is sacred, and then punishes serial killers, for example.

sorry still dont get it make no sense.
we had laws and morals before we had gods, why should atheism be thought different.

silas gave a very good answer.

however read this http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=39275 and this
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=39527
this should clear things up

 

[Arditezza]

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.

You misunderstand. Every life having meaning, does not mean that the serial killer go unpunished. I am not sure where that leap came from. What we can learn from the serial killer, is what his/her meaning becomes. When we learn from their behaviours, we are better prepared to prevent another human from becoming the same as them. If we have compassion and understanding of humanity, we can better understand how we can work together to make a better life for the next generation. The more we learn, the better off we become. Close-mindedness is the antithesis to my ideals, which is why often I find people who cannot see the forest through the trees so detestable to interact with. False people are even worse, because they are the tricksters of society that deny humanity the ability to understand and acknowledge them.

I don't know how you jumped from a lack of religion to a lack of morals and virtues. I have very good morals, and very concrete reasons for them being there. I am by no means a pansy liberal either, as I believe that swift punishment either ends the behaviour, ends that persons interactions with said society or in some cases ends their existence all together. The existence of God is not inherent to morality and virtue. In fact, in some cases is causes harm to society that otherwise should not be done. I am a good person, I live a good life, I am open-minded and more importantly open-hearted. I give of myself to ease others burdens and to learn what they have to teach, both of my mind and my heart. Just because I am an atheist, does not mean that I am without morals.

Your conclusions of my statement were illogical and irrational.

 

[Arditezza]

Everyone does so.

If I believe in no God, how can I judge you based on his teachings?

If I believe in society, do I not have a better grasp on what harms and what heals and judge according to that which effects the world around me? What does a book written 2000 years ago know about humanity today and how it has developed. Why should we not judge on the factors of today, knowing that we have evolved as a society that has civil rights, freedom of thought, and can indeed love without boundries?

Personally, I'd rather live in my reality than in some old wives tale.

 

[water]

Your conclusions of my statement were illogical and irrational.

I have made no conclusions. I don't know where you saw them.

 

[Arditezza]

Look. If what Arditezza proposed is tresspassed (and it is; murders, rapes, thefts etc. happen daily), then how does she propose those tresspasses be sanctioned, on what grounds?
Sanctionig those tresspasses inherently contradicts the very values she espouses.

It is inconsistent if a society claims that all life is sacred, and then punishes serial killers, for example.

??

Come on water. At least try to back your arguments.

 

[ellion]

The meaning of life, of existence... is to make others lives easier to bear.

i think it is important that you are aware that this is the meaning of your life. not of life, of existence.

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.

this is admirable, work hard to achieve this, if it is your purpose but please be careful not to make it the purpose of other peoples lives or tell other people this is what their life is about. doing this you would be just like those false people, the tricksters of society, denying people the ability to understand themselves and find their own truth.

 

[Arditezza]

I don't. It's a personal thing. I make a solid effort not to push my ideals on others, and I don't speak about them often. I only stated them because of a generalization that atheists have no purpose in life, no need for their own existence. I am not one of those atheists, and was attempting to point that out.

Besides which, I find my own ideals very hard to live by. But I like a good challenge.

 

[Sarkus]

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.

Unlike audible, I do not think that 99.99999999% of atheists have this as their "meaning". To be honest, I think most would say that life ultimately has no meaning; "Meaning" implies implies creator - which I have no belief in.
I have no belief in a "meaning", a "purpose", to humanity other than "to be what it is".

I can assign a purpose to myself - as you have done above - but this would purely be a personal meaning, as you have stated yours is.

 

[ellion]

Unlike audible, I do not think that 99.99999999% of atheists have this as their "meaning". To be honest, I think most would say that life ultimately has no meaning; "Meaning" implies implies creator - which I have no belief in.
I have no belief in a "meaning", a "purpose", to humanity other than "to be what it is".

I can assign a purpose to myself - as you have done above - but this would purely be a personal meaning, as you have stated yours is.

audible thinks that Major% of the poplualtion thinks such a way.
sarkus thinks audible is wrong because Major% of the poplualtion think his way.


saying i have no belief in a purpose for humanity other than this one, you are saying this is the purpose for humanity. but it is not, this is your purpose for yourself, not for me or for audible, for arditezza or humanity, it is for you.


how does meaning imply creator? how are meaning and purpose the same?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Mystech,

…but do you really think that Satanism is even half so prevalent or influential…

In the philosophy forum on the second page there is a thread entitled ‘Satanic Philosophy’. In that thread there is an interesting point made by Xev in response to a point from ‘Man of Jade’ regarding an exert from a satanic website (church of satan).

Man of Jade;

“This is the only religon that i disagree with. Any other one, id say go ahead and do your thing. But when someone says its ok to hurt people them, thats where i draw the line”

Xev;

Tell me, if I punched you, would you stand there and take it?
If I stole your wallet, would you say "wait, let me give you my car keys!"?

Chances are you'd fight back in the first case and count yourself lucky that I didn't take your car in the second. You'd defend yourself, yes?

Then you are following Satanic philosophy.

I think she is absolutely correct. She is basically saying that it matters not what you say you believe, but it matters how you act.

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.

It depends on what you think Satanism is.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

audible,

you seem constantly trying to conjoin humanism with satanism, why I dont know.

I don't need to try, it is there in plain english.

if jesus christ existed then he was a humanist, as would be god.

What do you mean if? Why would he not exist? Jesus said he was the direct son of God, the Supreme Creator. And that 'faith' could move mountains. Humanists "reject the idea that God has intervened miraculously in history or revealed himself to a chosen few or that he can save or redeem sinners."
And your claim that God is or would be a humanist is totally out there in cuckoo land.

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.

You are make a load of assumptions which a) are not correct, in and of themselves, and b) have nothing to do with the thread.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Sarkus]

audible thinks that Major% of the poplualtion thinks such a way.
sarkus thinks audible is wrong because Major% of the poplualtion think his way.

No - I'm saying that I do not think that 99.999999% of the atheist population DO think his way. But then again, he did say atheist/humanist - so maybe he's just referring to the humanists among the atheists - or maybe I'm the 0.0000001% of atheists that don't think the way he suggests.

saying i have no belief in a purpose for humanity other than this one, you are saying this is the purpose for humanity. but it is not, this is your purpose for yourself, not for me or for audible, for arditezza or humanity, it is for you.

Confusion - I do not believe in a purpose or meaning for humanity. The "to be what it is" is the closest I could come up with for what I feel - i.e. humanity just is. I do not consider this a purpose or a meaning.
So apologies for any confusion.
And I do agree that any meaning or purpose I assign would be purely my view for myself.

[/quote]how does meaning imply creator? how are meaning and purpose the same?[/QUOTE]If you ask me "What does X mean?" then it implies that I (or someone else) have created X and that it must mean something. Thus it implies creator.

I do not believe that "life" or "humanity" has a meaning.
I do think that each individual assigns him/herself their own meaning - but this is not the meaning of "life" or of humanity or of anything else other than that individual.